Case Note & Summary
The appeals and cross objections arose from a common land acquisition for construction of a road from NH-17 near Sesa Goa Workshop to join Pale-Birla Airport road near MES College in Sancoale village. By notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on 30.4.1992, land admeasuring 2050 sq.m. belonging to the respondents (claimants) was acquired. Each respondent held a 1/5 share. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants claimed compensation at Rs.250 per sq.m. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16.12.1994 fixing compensation at Rs.35 per sq.m. Aggrieved, the claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Act claiming Rs.250 per sq.m. The Reference Court registered cases and conducted trial. Claimants examined Pandurang Kantak, the vendor Abdul Aziz Shaikh Mohidin (AW.2) who produced sale deed dated 29.1.1993 (Exhibit AW.2/A) selling 340 sq.m. at Rs.250 per sq.m., and civil engineer/valuer Ravindra Tamba (AW.3). The State led no evidence. The claimants also relied on two pre-notification sale deeds (Exhibits AW.1/B and AW.1/C) showing rates of Rs.307 and Rs.300 per sq.m. The Reference Court, while noting the post-notification sale deed, found the land comparable, but held that the acquired land was interior and distant from NH-17, and deducted 50% from the sale price, arriving at Rs.125 per sq.m. The claimants did not press the area challenge. Dissatisfied, the State filed appeals contending the sale deed plot was developed and not comparable, and that even if comparable, 75% deduction was warranted. Claimants filed cross objections seeking enhancement to Rs.249 per sq.m. based on expert report and arguing that no deduction was required as the acquired area was less than 4000 sq.m. and no subdivision was required under Town and Country Planning regulations. The High Court heard the parties but the judgment copy is incomplete, and no final decision or ratio is available. The arguments focused on comparability, extent of deduction, and reliability of expert evidence.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Comparability of Sale Deed - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 18, 23 - The Reference Court adopted a post-notification sale deed (Exhibit AW.2/A) after holding it comparable to the acquired land; the State challenged comparability on grounds that the sale plot was developed and sold for residential purpose unlike acquired land (Paras 7-8). B) Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Deduction for Development - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - The Reference Court applied 50% deduction from the sale deed price to arrive at compensation of Rs.125 per sq.m.; the State argued for 75% deduction; the claimants sought enhancement based on expert valuation (Paras 7-8, 12). C) Evidence - Expert Opinion - Approved Valuer Report - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - The claimants produced an expert report from a civil engineer (AW.3) to support compensation at Rs.249 per sq.m.; the Reference Court did not rely on the expert report; the claimants argued for its consideration (Paras 3, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court correctly determined market value of acquired land by relying on post-notification sale deed; whether 50% deduction from sale deed price was appropriate; whether expert report should be considered for compensation determination.
Law Points
- Market value determination
- comparability of sale deeds
- deduction for development
- post-notification sale instances
- expert evidence
- burden of proof
