State Of Goa Through Deputy ... vs Maria Caetana Braganza And Manuel ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 63 Bom

JUDGMENT

N.A. Britto, J.

1. Heard Ms. Coutinho, the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Appellant. The respondents have chosen to remain absent.

2. This is State's appeal against enhancement of compensation from Rs. 75/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 110/- per sq. mt., by award dated 27/03/1997 of the learned District Judge, Panaji.

3. There is no dispute that by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published on Gazette dated 18/02/1982, land admeasuring 2166 sq. mts. from Chalta No. 7 P.T. Sheet No. 175 was acquired by the Government for parks, recreational and other developments at Miramar area and the Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to offer compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. mt.

4. The applicants (the respondents, herein) are the widow and the son of Gabriel Rodrigues to whom the said property belonged to. Dissatisfied with the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicants sought reference to be made and in the said reference examined their attorney Mr. Alfred Cota and produced three sale deeds and one award and in support of the sale deed dated 31/03/1976, examined AW4/Ashok A. Cota and in support of sale deed dated 19/02/1981 examined Carmina Fernandes. The respondents (appellants herein) had examined one of their Town Planners.

5. The learned Reference Court placing reliance on the evidence of the attorney of the applicants found that the applicants' land was situated at Caranzalem, close to the Panaji-Dona Paula road on the Western side extending up to the Miramar beach and as it was less than 4,000 sq. mts. in area; it was ideal for construction of houses without going for its sub- division. The said attorney had also deposed that the acquired land was in a settlement zone which was indirectly confirmed by the Town Planner by stating that construction was possible in the wide land. As per the applicants' attorney, the acquired land had water and electricity available on the said Panaji-Dona Paula road and was having 100% FAR and also had access from the Miramar beach. It was located at a distance of about 21/2 kms. from the Miramar circle and other civic amenities like school was within the 200 mts., college within 21/2 kms. etc. As per AW2 Engineer/Shri Rui Ribeiro Santana, who was an expert examined by the applicants, the acquired land was situated at the base of Dona Paula hill, on left side as one goes from Dona Paula to Panaji. He had also stated that the acquired land was paddy field and was 10 mts. away from the said Panaji-Dona Paula road and was 1.5 mts. below the said road level. He too had stated that the acquired land was falling in a settlement zone and was suitable for construction purpose.

6. From the four sale deeds produced by the applicants, the learned Reference Court preferred to choose the sale deeds dated 31/03/1976 and 19/02/1981, as according to the learned Reference Court, the same were proved and other two were not proved as per law which then held the field, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Inder Singh and Ors. v. Union of India . From the said two sale deeds dated 19/02/1981-Exhibit AW1/C and 24/08/1981-Exhibit AW1/D, the learned Reference Court chose the sale deed dated 19/02/1981-Exhibit AW1/C as a guide to fix the compensation as it was closest from the point of time and distance as well. In fact, the said sale deed dated 19/02/1981 was in respect of a plot admeasuring 504 sq. mts., sold at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. mt., and was used by the learned Reference Court as a guide for the purpose of fixing the compensation payable to the applicants and in that no fault could be found out. In choosing the said sale deed, the learned Reference Court referred to the case of State of Punjab v. Hans Raj (dec.) through LR's 1994 BCJ (SC) 909 and also to an unreported decision of this Court in First Civil Appeal No. 1/1987 (Union of India v. Espociosa Rosa Leticia D'Souza) observing that the sale deed which is proximate to the acquired land, both in point of time and place, was required to be selected for the purpose of fixing the value of the acquired land. The learned Reference Court found that the plot of sale deed dated 19/02/1981-Exhibit AW1/C was situated at a distance of about 500 mts. from the acquired property, while the sale deed dated 24/08/1981-Exhibit AW1/D was located at a distance of about 2.5 kms. After choosing the sale deed dated 19/02/1981-Exhibit AW1/C as a guide for the purpose of fixing compensation payable to the acquired land, the learned Reference Court found that the plot of the said sale deed was a developed plot and, as such, 1/3rd deduction from price was required to be made. Indeed, the Apex Court in various of its decisions has stated that normally 1/3rd of the land acquired is to be set apart for road purposes, developmental purposes and other civic amenities. It can be found out from the case of Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana that the Apex Court has upheld the deduction of 1/3rd of the undeveloped land towards developmental charges and some of the cases which are reflected therein are Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab , Special Land Acquisition Officer v. V.T. Velu and U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam 1998 (2) SCC 467, wherein the Bench of three learned Judges of the Apex Court held that 1/3rd of the price towards cost of development for housing scheme involving construction of roads and other amenities was required to be made. The learned Reference Court also took note of the fact that the sale deed dated 19/02/1981-Exhibit AW1/C was one year prior to the date of acquisition and thus gave appreciation of 10% and fixed the price of the acquired land at Rs. 220/-. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court deducted a sum of Rs. 25/- per sq. mt. since as per the evidence of the Town Planner examined by the respondent, the acquired land was about 1 mt. below the road level. The learned Reference Court also took note of the fact that the acquired land was at a distance of about 10 mts. away from the said Panaji-Dona Paula road, while the plot of sale deed-Exhibit AW1/C was bounded by road on two sides, one of each was 8 mts. and the other of 6 mts. and on that count made a further deduction of 5% and thus assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 110/- per sq. mt.

7. The learned Government Advocate has not been able to point out to any error in the judgment of the learned Reference court. In my view, there is none. The learned Reference Court after following the well established principles of determining the compensation payable and after taking a sale deed of a developed plot-Exhibit AW1/C as a guide, which was the closest from the point of time and place, has assessed the compensation payable after considering the minus and plus factors and, therefore, no interference is called for from this Court.

8. In the light of the above, I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.