Partly allowed

Dy.Collector(Dev) and L.a.O.Collectorate,and Anr. v. M/S Agarwal Minerals (Goa) Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC15 Oct 2010FA/16/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa disposed of two cross appeals regarding land acquisition. The Court held that lands acquired under the same notification deserved uniform compensation. It modified the lower court award and fixed the compensation at Rs. 200 per square metre, considering comparable market values.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was modified and compensation fixed at Rs. 200 per square metre, including difference, solatium, and interest.

Dy.Collector(Dev) and L.a.O.Collectorate,and Anr. Vs M/S… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2001 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2002

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2001

¶5

M/s. Agrawal Minerals (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Box No. 107, Margao Goa.	... Appellant
V e r s u s
1. Deputy Collector ( Dev ) and Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji Goa.
2. Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Panaji Goa. ...	Respondents
Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for	the Respondents.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2002
1. Dy. Collector ( Dev.) and Land Acquisition Officer, Collectorate, Panaji Goa.
2. Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Dept. Old G.M.C. Complex, Panaji Goa. ...	Appellants
V e r s u s
M/s Agarwal Minerals (Goa) Private Ltd.
P.O. Box No. 107,
Margao Goa. ...	Respondent

¶6

:2:

¶7

Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants.

¶8

Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATED : 15^th OCTOBER, 2010.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

These two cross appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 30^th April, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Land Acquisition Case No. 175/90. For the sake of convenience the appellant in First Appeal No.145 of 2001 is hereinafter referred to as the appellant.

¶14

By a notification published in the Official Gazette dated 18^th February, 1982 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the land of the Appellants was acquired for the purpose of parks, recreational and other development of the area of Miramar. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Appellants requested the Collector to make a reference under

¶15

:3:

¶16

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the Collector referred the matter to the District Court. By the impugned judgment and award dated 30^th April, 2001 the District Court enhanced the compensation and fixed it at Rs.192/- per square metre.

¶17

It may be noted that several lands apart from the appellants land were acquired under the same notification under the same award for the same purpose. Several references were made at the instance of the different persons whose lands were acquired under the same notification. Several appeals were filed against the decisions of the Reference Court in this Court. The learned Counsel for the Appellants invited my attention to the decisions of this Court in the following three cases :

¶18

(i) First Appeal No. 92 of 2000 decided on 5^th September, 2005 ( Coram : R. M. Lodha & N. A. Britto, JJ );

¶19

(ii) First Appeal No. 247 of 2000 decided on 4^th July, 2008 ( Coram : S. A. Bobde & R. C. Chavan, JJ ); and

¶20

(iii) First Appeal No. 201 of 2000 decided on 18^th June, 2010 ( Coram : A. S. Oka, J).

¶21

In all above three matters this Court has held that the market value of the land in the vicinity and acquired under the same notification for the same purpose was Rs.200/- per square metre. The learned

¶22

:4:

¶23

Additional Government Advocate accepts that there is no difference between the lands covered by the aforesaid three judgments of this Court and the land in question in the present appeal. In view of this, it would be appropriate to award a compensation in the present case also at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre.

¶24

For these reasons, the impugned judgment and award is modified and it is declared that the appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre for the acquired land. The appellants shall be paid the difference in the compensation along with the statutory charges like solatium and interest on the enhanced amount.

¶25

In view of the above, no separate order is necessary in the cross appeal filed by the State bearing First Appeal No. 16 of 2002 and this order shall govern the decision in both the appeals.

Ordered accordingly.

D. G. KARNIK, J.

at*

:5:

Dy.Collector(Dev) and L.a.O.Collectorate,and Anr. v. M/S Agarwal Minerals (Goa) Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dy.Collector(Dev) and L.a.O.Collectorate,and Anr. v. M/S Agarwal Minerals (Goa) Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lilia Lopes(Dec.)through Lr'S and Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Smt.Ratan S.Mayenkar and Ors. Vs Deputy Collector(Rev.)and L.a.O.,Panaji and Anr.

State of Goa and Anr. Vs Smt.Lilia Lopes E Luis

Spl.Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs Manuel Faria Rodrigues

State of Goa and Anr. Vs Smt.Bindiya M.Verlekar

Deputy Collector(L.a.) and Land Acq. Officer and Anr. Vs Shri Antonio Vieira Velho(Deceased) through L.Rs.