Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal by the Dy. Collector & S.D.O. and the Executive Engineer against the judgment and award of the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 74/2002. The respondent's land measuring 775 square metres in survey No. 326/1 in Chinchinim Village was acquired for construction of branch canal-I of District D3 of SIP under a Section 4 notification dated 26th October 1999 published on 3rd February 2000. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.11 per square metre under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Dissatisfied, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 claiming Rs.100 per square metre. The Reference Court, relying on a sale deed (Exhibit 15) executed on 21st February 2000, fixed compensation at Rs.100 per square metre. The appellants challenged this, arguing that the sale deed was executed after the Section 4 notification and was for land adjoining the purchaser's property, making it unreliable. The respondent did not appear. The High Court held that the sale instance could not be relied upon as it was not a genuine comparable sale, and the respondent failed to adduce evidence to prove inadequacy of compensation. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Reference Court's award and restoring the compensation at Rs.11 per square metre.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Market Value Determination - Comparable Sale Instances - Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The court considered whether a sale deed executed after the Section 4 notification and for land adjoining the purchaser's property could be relied upon to determine market value. Held that such sale instance is not a genuine comparable sale and cannot be the basis for fixing compensation. The burden is on the claimant to prove inadequacy of compensation. (Paras 1-4)
B) Land Acquisition - Burden of Proof - Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The claimant must adduce evidence to show that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. In the absence of reliable evidence, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer must be confirmed. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.100 per square metre based on a sale deed executed after the Section 4 notification and for land adjoining the purchaser's property.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 31st March 2004 in Land Acquisition Case No. 74/2002 is set aside. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.11 per square metre is restored.
Law Points
- Market value determination
- Comparable sale instances
- Burden of proof
- Section 4 notification date
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 118
First Appeal No. 162 of 2004
Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Respondent absent though served.
Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Sub Division, South Goa, Margao Goa and The Executive Engineer, Work Division X, Pajimol Sanguem Goa
Smt. Jevina Pereira e Fernandes
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against judgment and award of Reference Court in land acquisition compensation enhancement.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the Reference Court's award and restore compensation at Rs.11 per square metre.
Filing Reason
Appellants aggrieved by Reference Court fixing compensation at Rs.100 per square metre based on an unreliable sale instance.
Previous Decisions
Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.11 per sq m under Section 11; Reference Court enhanced to Rs.100 per sq m.
Issues
Whether the Reference Court was justified in fixing market value at Rs.100 per sq m based on sale deed executed after Section 4 notification and for adjoining land.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the sale deed (Exhibit 15) could not be relied upon as it was executed after the Section 4 notification and the land was adjoining the purchaser's property, making it not a genuine comparable sale.
Appellants submitted that the respondent failed to adduce evidence to prove inadequacy of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
A sale deed executed after the Section 4 notification and for land adjoining the purchaser's property is not a genuine comparable sale instance for determining market value of acquired land. The claimant bears the burden to prove inadequacy of compensation, and in the absence of reliable evidence, the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer must be confirmed.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misconstrued the sale deed produced by the Respondent which is at Exhibit 15 to come to the conclusion that the land acquired has a market value of Rs.100/- per square metre on the relevant date.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the said sale instance could not be relied upon as the same was purchased in view of the fact that the land which was the subject matter of the said sale deed was adjoining the property of the purchaser.
Procedural History
Land acquired under Section 4 notification dated 26.10.1999. Land Acquisition Officer passed award under Section 11 on 25.10.2000 fixing compensation at Rs.11 per sq m. Respondent sought reference under Section 18. Reference Court (Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao) passed judgment and award on 31.03.2004 enhancing compensation to Rs.100 per sq m. Appellants filed First Appeal No. 162 of 2004 in High Court of Bombay at Goa. High Court allowed appeal on 24.09.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 11, Section 18, Section 23
