Bombay High Court at Goa Dismisses Landowners' Appeal Seeking Enhanced Compensation Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Due to Failure to Establish Comparable Sale Instances. Onus of proving inadequacy of compensation rests on claimant; sale deeds for large hotel construction sites held not comparable to the acquired 200 sq m strip used as a road.

Appeal against rejection of reference for enhanced compensation by Reference Court in Land Acquisition case.

Appellants sought enhancement of compensation from Rs.27 per sq m to Rs.325 per sq m for acquired 200 sq m land.

Dissatisfied with LAO award, applicants filed reference under Section 18; reference court rejected claim; hence first appeal.

Reference Court by Judgment dated 10-1-2005 rejected the reference for enhancement.

Whether the reference court was justified in rejecting the reference for enhancement of compensation by holding that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were not comparable to the acquired land?

Appellants contended that the acquired land being in coastal belt with high demand, it was not necessary to prove similarity with sale deeds Exh.18 and Exh.19; that the respondents failed to adduce contrary evidence; and relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda to argue that State also has burden. Respondents supported the reference court’s reasoning that sale instances were for large hotel construction sites and not comparable to the narrow strip of acquired land.

The burden of proving that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate lies on the claimant seeking enhancement. In comparable sales method, the sale instances must be genuine, proximate in time and situation, and involve lands similar and comparable in size to the acquired land. When there are dissimilarities, suitable adjustments must be made using plus/minus factor analysis. The appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact made by the reference court unless they are perverse.

the applicants' land admeasuring 200 sq. meters from survey No.165/1 of Varca village was included in the said notification. The learned reference Court has rejected the claim for enhancement essentially because, in the opinion of the learned reference Court, the applicants had not stated that the said two properties were similar to the acquired land, at the same time, taking note of the fact that when the applicants' expert Shri Kamat had visited the said property, big hotels were already existing in them. In my view, no much support can be derived by the applicants from the said observations of the Apex Court. the burden to prove that the amount of compensation awarded by the L.A.O. is inadequate is always on the claimants seeking higher compensation comparable sales method of valuation is the most preferred method because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land, if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act The factors which have been spelt out in the case of Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others ((2002) 7 SCC 650) are that:- 1. the sale method must be a genuine transaction, 2. that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 3. that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, 4. that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, 5. that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the acquired land. the learned reference Court's conclusions that the sale instances relied upon by the applicants were not comparable and the applicants' claim for enhancement of compensation is not proved, could not be considered as perverse.

The Government issued notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act on 27-7-2000 for acquiring land for road improvement in Varca, Goa. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 12-12-2002 awarding Rs.27 per sq m. The claimants, dissatisfied, sought reference under Section 18. The Reference Court by judgment dated 10-1-2005 rejected the reference. The claimants filed First Appeal No.183 of 2005 before the High Court.

• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4(1)