Case Note & Summary
The matter was a first appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the judgment and award dated 22.03.2016 passed by the District Court, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.7/2013, which was a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant sought enhancement of compensation for land acquired for construction of a District Headquarters Office building complex in South Goa District at Salcete Goa. By notification dated 17.04.2006, the appellant's land admeasuring 4429 square meters (as per notification; later affidavit mentioned 3754 square meters) in City Survey of Margao was proposed for acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at ₹8 per square metre on 10.10.2006. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought ₹2000 per square metre before the Reference Court, which dismissed the reference on 22.03.2016 for lack of proof of higher market value. Hence the first appeal. Legal issues included whether the market value should be enhanced, whether post-notification sale deeds and developed plot sale deeds could be considered, whether additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC should be admitted, and the effect of tenanted status under the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The appellant argued that the land had building potential due to proximity to Kadamba Bus Stand, Margao city, hospital, school, and railway station; sale deeds indicated price rise; and additional evidence of an adjacent land award at ₹142 per square metre in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2007 should be admitted, relying on Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar for 50% deduction. The respondent contended that the land was tenanted agricultural land, not usable for non-agricultural purposes under the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991; sale deeds were of developed plots after Section 4 notification and hence irrelevant; no agricultural yield was proved; and additional evidence was not admissible or comparable. The court observed that no reliable evidence of agricultural yield or building potential was produced; sale deeds largely post-notification and of developed plots were not comparable; and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC lacked explanation and relevance. The court also noticed the Supreme Court's approach in Goa Housing Board regarding 50% deduction for tenanted land but did not apply it in the absence of admissible comparable evidence. The final operative decision was not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Market Value Determination - Burden of Proof - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 and 18 - Claimant in a land acquisition reference must prove market value exceeding the LAO award; sale deeds executed after Section 4 notification and relating to developed plots are not comparable to tenanted agricultural land; in the absence of reliable agricultural yield or building potential evidence, the court observed that no case for enhancement was made based on such evidence; Held that burden of proof was not discharged (Paras 5, 8, 10-13, 16-19). B) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Application for leave to produce additional sale deeds in appeal was not granted because no explanation was given for non-production earlier and acceptance would require remand for comparability; sale deeds were not relevant (Paras 9, 13, 20). C) Land Acquisition - Tenanted Land Valuation - Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 - Tenanted agricultural land cannot be valued on building potential without appropriate deduction; Supreme Court in Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar, (2011) 10 SCC 371 ordered 50% deduction from freehold land market value for tenanted land (Paras 10, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquired land's market value should be enhanced beyond ₹8 per square metre; whether additional evidence should be admitted under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC; whether tenanted land's building potential should be considered and what deduction applies under Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991.
Law Points
- Claimant bears burden to prove higher market value
- sale deeds after Section 4 notification and for developed plots not comparable
- additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC requires explanation and relevance
- tenanted agricultural land subject to Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act
- 1991 cannot be valued on building potential without deduction as per Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar.
