Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to an appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer against the Judgment and Award dated 28-2-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji, Goa in Land Acquisition Case No.36 of 2005. The appellants had acquired land belonging to the respondent, Namdev Ganesh Naik, under a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for construction of a road from Volvoi to Sateribhat. The land was surveyed under No. 14 sub-division 10 of Village Volvoi, Ponda Taluka, admeasuring 300 sq. meters. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total sum of Rs.22,462/- for the land acquired. Dissatisfied, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, claiming Rs.250/- per sq. meter. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed compensation at Rs.60/- per sq. meter. The appellants challenged this award, arguing that the Reference Court did not apply its mind and that the sale instance relied upon was from a different village. The respondent's counsel argued that the land was closer to the sale instance land used in a previous appeal (First Appeal No.98 of 2006) where compensation was fixed at Rs.50 per sq. meter for land in the same village under the same notification. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Reference Court had applied its mind and that the compensation of Rs.60 per sq. meter was not unjust. The Court noted that the land in question was closer to the sale instance land and that the previous appeal had fixed compensation at Rs.50 per sq. meter for a different survey number. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Reference Court's award.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Sale Instance Method - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 11, 18 - The appeal challenged the Reference Court's award of compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter for land acquired for road construction. The High Court upheld the award, noting that the land was closer to the sale instance land relied upon in a previous appeal (First Appeal No.98 of 2006) where compensation was fixed at Rs.50 per sq. meter. The Court found no reason to interfere as the compensation was not unjust and the Reference Court had applied its mind. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court's determination of compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter for the acquired land was justified and based on proper application of mind.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Judgment and Award dated 28-2-2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji, Goa in Land Acquisition Case No.36 of 2005, fixing compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 4
- Section 11
- Section 18
- Compensation determination
- Sale instance comparison
- Proximity of land
- Same notification
- Consistency in compensation
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 25
First Appeal No. 165 of 2006
Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants; Shri Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Respondent
Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D.(Cell), Altinho, Panaji-Goa and Executive Engineer, Works Division XVIII, (R), P.W.D., Ponda-Goa
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 matter.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to quash and set aside the Reference Court's award fixing compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter.
Filing Reason
Appellants were aggrieved by the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation from Rs.22,462 total to Rs.60 per sq. meter.
Previous Decisions
Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter. In a related appeal (First Appeal No.98 of 2006), compensation for land in same village under same notification was fixed at Rs.50 per sq. meter.
Issues
Whether the Reference Court's determination of compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter was justified and based on proper application of mind.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the Reference Court did not apply its mind and erroneously fixed compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter, and that the sale instance land was in a different village.
Respondent argued that the land was closer to the sale instance land relied upon in First Appeal No.98 of 2006, and thus the compensation was not unjust.
Ratio Decidendi
The Reference Court's determination of compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter was not unjust as the land was closer to the sale instance land relied upon in a previous appeal for the same village and notification. The Court found no reason to interfere with the award.
Judgment Excerpts
The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. meter.
Learned Government Advocate further submitted that this Court whilst disposing of First Appeal No.98 of 2006 by Judgment dated 9-3-2011 rejected the appeal preferred by the Appellants wherein the compensation in respect of land acquired therein for the same purpose in the same village surveyed under No.18/1 was fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter.
I find that the Reference Court has applied its mind and the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre cannot be said to be unjust.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, awarding Rs.22,462/- for the acquired land. The respondent sought a reference under Section 18 for enhancement. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed compensation at Rs.60 per sq. meter on 28-2-2006. The appellants filed the present appeal against that award.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 11, Section 18
