Case Note & Summary
The appellant, The Fabrica of the Church of Benaulim, owned land in Benaulim village that was acquired by the Government of Goa for construction and black topping of a road. The acquisition was initiated by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13/2/1991, published in the Official Gazette on 22/08/1991 and at appropriate places on 30/1/1992. The acquired land comprised four parcels: 250 sq.metres out of survey no.382/5, 60 sq.metres out of survey no.243/2, 80 sq.metres out of survey no.376/10, and 210 sq.metres out of survey no.391/1. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value at Rs.7 per sq.metre and awarded Rs.9,765 for trees in survey no.382/5 and Rs.12,565 for trees in survey no.393/1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming Rs.300 per sq.metre. In the reference (Land Acquisition Case No.176 of 1996), the appellant examined Fr. Lourenco Pascoal Dias (AW.1) and produced three sale deeds: Exhibit AW.1/B dated 1/6/1987 for a 500 sq.metre plot at Rs.180 per sq.metre, Exhibit AW.1/C dated 30/6/1988 for a 228 sq.metre plot at Rs.197.36 per sq.metre, and Exhibit AW.1/D for a portion of survey no.393/1 sold at Rs.325 per sq.metre. The witness claimed all plots were similar and situated 500 metres away. However, in cross-examination, he admitted the acquired land was a coconut garden and that the plot in Exhibit AW.1/D was at Sernabatim, not comparable. The Additional District Judge dismissed the reference on 10/3/2003. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the sale deeds were comparable, as the acquired land was agricultural with coconut trees, while the sale plots were in a different locality with development potential. The court also noted that the appellant did not challenge the tree compensation. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and award of the Reference Court were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Market Value - Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Determination of market value - The appellant claimed Rs.300 per sq.metre based on sale deeds of plots situated 500 metres away, but the court held that the sale deeds were not comparable as the acquired land was a coconut garden and the sale plots were in a different locality with potential for development. The Land Acquisition Officer's valuation of Rs.7 per sq.metre was upheld. (Paras 2-6) B) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Burden of Proof - Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the compensation awarded was inadequate. The sale deeds produced did not establish that the acquired land had similar potential or location. (Paras 3-6) C) Land Acquisition - Trees Compensation - Section 23, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The appellant received separate compensation for trees (Rs.9,765 and Rs.12,565) and did not challenge that amount. The claim for enhanced land compensation was not supported by evidence. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.300 per sq.metre for the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 10/3/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.176 of 1996 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Market Value
- Burden of Proof
- Comparable Sales
- Section 18 Reference
