High Court of Bombay at Goa Decides First Appeal No. 107 of 1999 and Cross Objection No. 6 of 2000 in Land Acquisition Compensation Case. The appeal challenged enhancement of compensation from Rs.4.50-6 to Rs.89.25 per square metre under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard a first appeal and cross objection arising from a land acquisition reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State of Goa had acquired land for the development of an institutional complex at Curca, Bambolim, Calapur, Taleigao, and Dona Paula. The acquisition was initiated by a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 28 January 1982, covering an area of 16,277 square metres in Survey Nos. 194(part) and 195(part) of Calapur village. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 15 October 1985, granting compensation at Rs. 6 per square metre for cashew area and Rs. 4.50 per square metre for sloppy area. The landowners claimed Rs. 150 per square metre. The acquired land was situated 400 metres from the Panaji–Agacaim road and 400 metres from the Calapur market, with bus stops, schools, churches, and other amenities within a 500-metre radius. The Goa Medical Complex and Tamba Colony were within a two-kilometre radius. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants relied on several sale instances: an earlier acquisition award under a 1969 notification that fetched Rs. 30 per square metre; sale deeds from 1967, 1968, and 1969 showing rates between Rs. 22 and Rs. 30; a 1985 sale deed at Rs. 140 per square metre based on an agreement of sale dated 20 August 1982; and a 1986 sale deed stating that the land had been sold at Rs. 150 per square metre as per an agreement of sale dated 28 December 1981. They also examined a valuer who opined the market value at Rs. 90 per square metre. The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act enhanced the compensation to Rs. 38 per square metre by judgment dated 9 July 1999. The State preferred First Appeal No. 107 of 1999. Subsequently, the landowners filed Review Petition No. 5 of 1999 before the same court, pointing out an arithmetic error in the calculation of compensation. The court allowed the review on 24 January 2000 and corrected the compensation to Rs. 89.25 per square metre. The State amended its appeal to challenge the review order as well. The landowners also filed Cross Objection No. 6 of 2000. In appeal, the State contended that the Reference Court erred in relying on the agreement of sale dated 28 December 1981 which was not produced in evidence. The only reference to it was a recital in a subsequent sale deed dated 23 July 1986, which mentioned a payment of Rs. 40,000 towards the agreement but did not disclose the rate. The State argued that this agreement was manipulated and that the trial court could not have based its finding solely on oral testimony of the vendor. It further submitted that the deduction of 30% for development and an additional Rs. 7 per square metre for distance from the highway was erroneous. The State heavily relied on a judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 69 of 1992 and connected matters dated 3 August 1996, where compensation for adjacent survey numbers (194-C and 195-C) acquired under the same notification was fixed between Rs. 12.50 and Rs. 20 per square metre. The State argued that the Reference Court could not have awarded a higher amount for similar land. The State cited Supreme Court decisions in H. Narayanaiah (AIR 1976 SC 2403), Mariano Caetano Menezes (2005(2) All MR 371), and Panna Lal Ghosh (2004 AIR SCW 66) in support. The landowners defended the enhancement, contending that the agreement of sale dated 28 December 1981 was duly proved through the vendor’s testimony. They pointed out that Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, inserted by the 1984 amendment, permitted proof of sale transactions by certified copies without examining witnesses. They distinguished the earlier Division Bench judgment on several grounds: the sale deed relied upon in that case had not been proved; the lands in that case were tenanted while theirs were freehold; proximity to the road should not be the sole criteria for valuation; and the other sale deeds and the 1969 award supported the compensation. They also argued that compounding the 1969 award of Rs. 30 per square metre at 10% per annum would yield approximately Rs. 110 per square metre in 1981, making Rs. 89.25 reasonable. The provided text of the judgment ends with the submissions of the respondents and does not include the court’s analysis, findings, or decision.

Issue of Consideration