A.S. OKA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second Respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent.
(2.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17th October, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). THE reference was made at the instance of the appellant. THE reference is in respect of the land surveyed under survey no.172/8 (part) situated at Taleigao village, Tiswadi Taluka. THE area of the acquired land is 1202 square metres. THE notification under section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 19th September, 2002. By the award under section 4 of the said Act of 1894, the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs.100/- per square metre. In the reference, the claim made by the appellant of the market value is at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per square metre. By the impugned judgment and award, the market value has been fixed at Rs.257/- per square metre. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to the oral and documentary evidence and the findings recorded by the Reference Court. He pointed that a categorical finding is recorded that the land subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit 15 was comparable to the acquired land. He submitted that the area of the land which is the subject matter of the said sale deed is 210 square metres and the area of the acquired land is only 1202 square metres. He further pointed out that relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, 2005(4) Bom. CR 165, a deduction of 85% has been made by the Reference Court. He submitted that the said decision in the case of Nelson Fernandes and others (supra) has been upset by the Apex Court. He submitted that the acquired land is in close proximity to the land which is the subject matter the sale deed at exhibit 15 and is comparable in all respects and therefore, at highest,a deduction of 20% to 40% could have been made. The learned Senior Counsel for the second Respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. He submitted that a reasonable deduction has to be made for arriving at the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deed at exhibit 15. The learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment and award.
(3.) WE have given careful consideration to the submissions. A finding has been recorded by the Reference Court that the sale deed at Exhibit 15 which relates to the land admeasuring 210 square metres surveyed under survey no.82/1, situated in the same village was comparable to the acquired land in all respects. The date of of the sale deed at exhibit 15 is 10 th June, 2002. The rate reflected from the sale deed is Rs.2380/- per sq.metre. In the present case, the notification under section 4(1) has been published on 19th September, 2002. There is no challenge by the respondents to the award of the Reference Court. Even otherwise, we find that the said land subject matter of exhibit 15 is in the same village. The said land is at a distance of 700 metres from the acquired land. The Appellant and his witness have deposed that the said land was similar to the required land in all respects. The sale deed at exhibit 15 can be certainly treated as a comparable sale instance. The only question which needs to be considered is what should be the appropriate deduction to be made from the market value reflected from exhibit 15 for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. The appellant deposed that the acquired land had a direct access and the land was suitable for development. It is not in dispute that the acquired land on the relevant date was a bharad land. Perusal of the sale deed at Exhibit 15 shows that what was sold under the sale deed is a sub divided plot bearing no. 2A out of the developed land. As the acquired land was a bharad land on the relevant date and as the area of the acquired land is six times more than the land which the subject matter of exhibit 15, suitable deduction will have to be made. As stated earlier, the market value reflected from the land which is subject matter at exhibit 15, is Rs.2380/- per square metre. In the case of Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2010) 1 SCC 44, the Apex Court dealt with the issue of appropriate deductions. In paragraph 15, the the Apex Court observed thus: "Thus, if the valuation of a large extent of agricultural or undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in a private layout, then the standard deductions should be one-third (for roads,etc.) plus one-third (for expenditure of development), in all two-thirds (or 67%), as deduction may however, vary between 20% to 75% depending on several circumstances....". 6. In the present case the statement made by the appellant that the acquired land had an access has not been seriously disputed in the cross examination. Moreover, the area of the acquired land is 1202 sq.mtrs, as against which the area of the land subject matter of sale deed at Exhibit 14 is 210 sq.mtrs. Considering these two aspects, this is a case where deduction of 55% will have to be made for arriving at the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the sale deed at Exhibit 15. The deduction of 85% made by the Reference Court is excessive. After deduction of 55% is made from Rs.2380/- per square metre, the market value of the acquired land will be Rs.1071/- per square metre. To that extent, the impugned award will have to be modified. ;