First Appeal No. 182 of 2007. Case: Satchitanand Laximan Kantak Vs Deputy Collector/S.D.O./L.A.O. Mormugao. High Court of Bombay (India)
|First Appeal No. 182 of 2007
|For Appellant: Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate
|T. V. Nalawade, J.
|Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18, 4
|January 28, 2014
|High Court of Bombay (India)
T. V. Nalawade, J.
The appeal is filed against Judgment and Award of Land Acquisition Case No.29/2006 which was pending in the Court of District Judge (3), South Goa, Margao. The reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, "The Act"), is rejected by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard.
In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:
The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3/8/2000 for the purpose of acquisition of lands for the the purpose of construction of road from Igrezwado to Ashev Loyalawado in village Panchayat Majorda of Salcete Taluka. 134 square metres of portion of land under survey No. 6/9 from village Majorda of the applicant was acquired under the award dated 11/6/2003. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O, for short) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.metre. In the reference, the applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.metre on the basis of sale instance.
It is the case of the applicant that the land acquired is a part of his garden, it is of good quality and it is suitable for the purpose like agriculture, housing and industrial purpose. In respect of the compensation given by L.A.O of Rs.7560/- for loss of coconut trees, it is contended that the compensation is no just and proper and the L.A.O ought to have awarded the amount of Rs.15,000/-.
The proceeding was contested by the present respondents/opponents. The Trial Court has rejected the claim by holding that the sale instance shown by the applicant cannot be compared with the land acquired due to many things like difference in location, availability of amenities and the potentiality of the property for development. The Trial Court has held that the applicant has failed to prove that the market price of the land acquired was more than the rate awarded by the L.A.O. In respect of the compensation claimed for loss of coconut trees, the Trial Court has held that the applicant has failed to give expert evidence to show that the value of the trees was more than the rate awarded by the L.A.O.
This Court has perused the record in respect of the sale instance, the award made by the L.A.O and also the evidence given by the applicant. The record and the evidence show that a strip of land having length 22 metres and width 6 metres is acquired. The total area is around 134 sq.metres. The Government had fixed the value at Rs.60/- per...
To continue readingRequest your trial