DR. XIUBA SHRIPAD AMONKAR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. NAYANA XIUBA AMONKAR Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SDO AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25/02/2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 27/2001.

(2.) THE land belonging to the Appellants was sought to be acquired pursuant to a notification dated 20/10/1999 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") published in Official Gazette dated 4/11/1999, for the construction of the high level bridge across Amona, Khandola including approaches. The portion of the property belonging to the Appellant which was subject matter of the said acquisition was surveyed under No. 38/4 (part), 41(part), 44/17 (part), admeasuring an area of 260 square meters ;290 square metres and 750 square metres, respectively. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 24/11/2000, the Land Acquisition Officer offered the rate for the land surveyed under No. 38/4 at the rate of Rs. 40/ -per square meter ;for the land surveyed under No. 41 at the rate of Rs. 2/ -per square metre and for the land surveyed under No. 44/17 at the rate of Rs. 40/ -per square metre. Dissatisfied with the said amount, the Appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs. 160/ -per square metre in respect of the property surveyed under No. 38/4 and 41 and for the land surveyed under No. 44/17 at the rate of Rs. 200/ -per square metre. By judgment and award dated 25/02/2005, the Reference Court rejected the said reference filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment. Learned Counsel has pointed out that there is no material on record to substantiate the claim of the Appellant that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that there was justification on the part of the Reference Court to reject the sale instances produced by the Appellant at Exhibit 14,15 & 16. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant to the effect that the said sale instances and the said awards referred to by the expert ought to have been considered is totally misplaced as according to him, unless and until the said documents are produced and comparability is established, the question of relying upon any such sale instance would not arise. Learned Counsel further submitted that in case the said documents are produced the Respondents should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal to establish that the said sale instances are not at all comparable with the land acquired. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no justification for any interference in the impugned judgment. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of record, following point for determination arises in the appeal: