Appeal against reference court award enhancing land acquisition compensation. Single judge quashed enhanced award where claimant failed to prove acquired land had building potential or discharge burden of proving inadequate compensation.
Impugned Judgment and Award of 30.6.2001 quashed; reference by claimant dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 23/2002
Mr. S. Bandodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15th October, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2
3
comparable sale, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.15/- per sq. metre to Rs.150/- per sq. metre.
(i) The Sale Deed dated 30th June, 1990 was not admissible in evidence. The original sale deed was never produced in the Court and only a photocopy of the sale deed was produced on record. The original was brought by the claimant and after comparing the photocopy with the original, the photocopy was taken on record and marked as Exhibit AW.1/E, without its proof. The sale deed was not produced and neither the vendor nor the purchaser was examined. Therefore, the sale deed was not admissible in evidence.
(ii) The sale deed was not of a comparable plot. Though the plot under the sale deed Exhibit AW.1/E was of a nearby plot, it was a developed plot. As against that, the acquired plot was used even in the past as a road and was acquired for the purpose of asphalting it for use as a regular road. Therefore, the acquired land was not
4
comparable with the land covered under the sale deed.
(iii) The acquired land had no building potential. It was only a strip of land with width of 5 metres and it was incapable of being used for building purpose. In any event, it was not comparable with the land covered by the sale deed Exhibit AW.1/E which had the building potential.
(iv) If the sale deed was excluded from consideration on any of the three grounds mentioned above, there was no other evidence produced by the claimant for proving the market value of the land. The burden of proving that the compensation offered under the award was not the market value was on the claimant and since the burden was not discharged, the claimant was not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.
5
ground raised by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that the sale deed was not proved in accordance with the law and, therefore, not admissible in evidence.
nature of the acquired land is bagayat land having coconut trees.” He has not stated anywhere about any building potential for the acquired land. It is the case of the appellants State that the acquired land was a
long strip of land, having a breadth of only about 5 metres and was actually used as a road by the members of public even before the land was acquired. Only by way of a formality, the land was acquired for the purpose of making it as a regular tar road. It had no building potential whatsoever. In the cross examination, the claimant has admitted that the acquired land is a long strip and had a breadth of more or less 5 metres. In view of this admission of the claimant himself that the acquired land was only a long strip of land having breadth of 5 metres, the acquired land by itself had no building potential. However, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Goa and another vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009) 10 SCC 686, Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the
6
claimant contended that even a strip of land abutting a road would have the same market value as the adjacent land. In my view, the case has no application to the facts of the present case. Where a person owns a plot of land and only a portion of the land abutting the road is acquired leaving with the owner remaining part, it can be said that the acquired land has the same value as the remaining adjacent land and was having a building potential though it cannot be actually built. Where an owner owns a larger plot of land and a portion thereof is acquired the FSI of the plot of land is taken into consideration while allowing the building construction though the actual portion area falls in a set back of the adjacent road. The FSI of a portion of the land touching the road which is acquired can be used by the owner of the plot remaining with him after the acquisition. It is on account of this that it is held that the acquired land would have more or less the same value as the remaining land.
7
forms a part of the said larger plot. On the other hand, in the examination in chief, he did not give the area of the total land of survey No. 285/1 owned by him. He only stated that 595 sq. metres of survey No.285/1 was acquired. He then stated that the acquired land was a bagayat land having coconut trees. It appears, therefore, that the claimant was claiming compensation on the basis that it was an agricultural land and not on the basis that it had any building potential. In the cross examination, it was succinctly brought on record that the acquired land was a longish strip of land having a breadth of only 5 metres. This was done to show that the sale instance which was of a buildable plot was not a comparable sale. The claimant has, therefore, failed to prove that the sale instance in respect of a buildable plot relied upon by him was of land comparable to the acquired land which had no building potential
8
D.G. KARNIK, J.
ssm.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a sale deed of a buildable plot is admissible for comparison of market value when the acquired land is a narrow agricultural strip with no building potential.
Whether the claimant discharged the burden of proving the assessed compensation was inadequate.
Whether the portion of land acquired forms a part of a larger plot with remaining building potential.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Goa and another vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and othersDistinguished¶30
(2009) 10 SCC 686 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Goa
Smt. Bindiya M. Verlekar
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
