Compensation for acquired land a proximate land holder is
entitled to have increase in land prices taken into account
irrespective of any actual development on the property since
the land prices increased irrespective of such development.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2002
WITH
Land Acquisition officer vs. Alvaro
citation : 2012 (2) MH. L. J 552
CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J
DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal and cross objections preferred against
the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji
dated 22.4.2002 enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.30/- per square metre to
Rs.133/- per square metre.:3:
2. The land admeasuring 155 square metres from
survey no.21/1 of Neura-o-pequeno was acquired for
widening of old Goa -pillar road. Thus the land is obviously
abutting the main road. The land is an orchard land where
several fruit bearing trees grove and is shown to have
residential houses between 59 to 150 metres from it.
3. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation
on the basis of a sale deed dated 24.08.1988 at Exhibit
AW1/B where a comparable piece of land was sold at the rate
of Rs.190/- per square metre. After deducting 30% on
account of development charges, the Reference Court fixed
the compensation at the rate of Rs.133/- per square metre.
Shri Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the land
could not have been treated as having any development
potential since it was by the side of the road and was in fact
acquired for road widening. There is no merit in this
contention since it is settled law vide State of Goa and
another V/s Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others (2009)10
SCC 686 where the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5
as follows :-:4:
“5. The contention that a land adjoining
the highway should be treated as having
no development potential ( and
therefore as land without much value
except as ordinary agricultural land),
while considering the lands to its rear
which are farther away from the road, or
other adjoining lands of the same
extent, but having more depth ( so as to
extend beyond the 40 m margin ) as
having potential for development, is
illogical and cannot be accepted”.
Thus, there is no merit in this appeal.
4. While arguing the cross objection, Mr. M. B. Da
Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted
that the deduction on account of development charges was
not at all warranted since the land had to be used for road
widening and no development was possible on it. However,
as observed earlier in State of Goa and another V/s Gopal
Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009) 10 SCC 686, the
Supreme Court has taken the view that the land cannot be
treated as having development potential only because it was
side of the road. Hence, this contention is liable to be
rejected. Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Counsel further relied:5:
on the judgment in C. R. Nagaraja Shetty V/s Special
Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another
(2009) 11 SCC 75, wherein the Supreme Court set aside the
deduction on account of development charges granted by the
High Court on the ground that all that the acquiring body had
to achieve was to widen the national highway and there was
no question of any development. That decision was rendered
in different circumstances and apparently the development
charges were granted by the High Court even though no
deduction ordered by the Reference Court vide paragraph 14
which reads as under :
“14. As if this is not sufficient, when we
see the judgment of the Principal Civil
Judge ( Senior Division ), Bangalore,
Rural District, Bangalore in the reference
proceedings, we find that there is no
deduction ordered for the so-called
development charges. We are,
therefore, not in a position to
understand as to from where such
development charges sprang up”.
5. Moreover, it is not possible to ascertain the nature
of the sale instance land from the said judgment and it was
next contended by Mr. M. B. Da Costa that the Reference:6:
Court committed an error in not granting any enhancement
from the sale deed year 1988 to 1992, the year of the
notification under Section 4. There is substance in the
contention since the Reference Court has ignored about
increase in prices only because of the absence of any
evidence on actual development at the time of acquisition.
This view is erroneous since a proximate land holder is
entitled to have increase in land prices taken into account
irrespective of any actual development on the property since
the land prices increased irrespective of such development. It
appears from the evidence led by the respondents themselves
that there was an increase of about 8% per year vide
evidence of one Jose F. de Albuquarque.
6. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
respondents are entitled to an increase at the rate of 8% per
year from the year 1988 to 1992. Thus, the rate of
compensation will be Rs.190/- less 30% deduction = Rs.133/-
+ 8% addition per year = Rs.180.94. The appeal and cross
objections are disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.
S. A. BOBDE,J
at*:7:
Print Page
entitled to have increase in land prices taken into account
irrespective of any actual development on the property since
the land prices increased irrespective of such development.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2002
WITH
Land Acquisition officer vs. Alvaro
citation : 2012 (2) MH. L. J 552
CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J
DATE : 5th AUGUST, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal and cross objections preferred against
the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji
dated 22.4.2002 enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.30/- per square metre to
Rs.133/- per square metre.:3:
2. The land admeasuring 155 square metres from
survey no.21/1 of Neura-o-pequeno was acquired for
widening of old Goa -pillar road. Thus the land is obviously
abutting the main road. The land is an orchard land where
several fruit bearing trees grove and is shown to have
residential houses between 59 to 150 metres from it.
3. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation
on the basis of a sale deed dated 24.08.1988 at Exhibit
AW1/B where a comparable piece of land was sold at the rate
of Rs.190/- per square metre. After deducting 30% on
account of development charges, the Reference Court fixed
the compensation at the rate of Rs.133/- per square metre.
Shri Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the land
could not have been treated as having any development
potential since it was by the side of the road and was in fact
acquired for road widening. There is no merit in this
contention since it is settled law vide State of Goa and
another V/s Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others (2009)10
SCC 686 where the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5
as follows :-:4:
“5. The contention that a land adjoining
the highway should be treated as having
no development potential ( and
therefore as land without much value
except as ordinary agricultural land),
while considering the lands to its rear
which are farther away from the road, or
other adjoining lands of the same
extent, but having more depth ( so as to
extend beyond the 40 m margin ) as
having potential for development, is
illogical and cannot be accepted”.
Thus, there is no merit in this appeal.
4. While arguing the cross objection, Mr. M. B. Da
Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted
that the deduction on account of development charges was
not at all warranted since the land had to be used for road
widening and no development was possible on it. However,
as observed earlier in State of Goa and another V/s Gopal
Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009) 10 SCC 686, the
Supreme Court has taken the view that the land cannot be
treated as having development potential only because it was
side of the road. Hence, this contention is liable to be
rejected. Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Counsel further relied:5:
on the judgment in C. R. Nagaraja Shetty V/s Special
Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another
(2009) 11 SCC 75, wherein the Supreme Court set aside the
deduction on account of development charges granted by the
High Court on the ground that all that the acquiring body had
to achieve was to widen the national highway and there was
no question of any development. That decision was rendered
in different circumstances and apparently the development
charges were granted by the High Court even though no
deduction ordered by the Reference Court vide paragraph 14
which reads as under :
“14. As if this is not sufficient, when we
see the judgment of the Principal Civil
Judge ( Senior Division ), Bangalore,
Rural District, Bangalore in the reference
proceedings, we find that there is no
deduction ordered for the so-called
development charges. We are,
therefore, not in a position to
understand as to from where such
development charges sprang up”.
5. Moreover, it is not possible to ascertain the nature
of the sale instance land from the said judgment and it was
next contended by Mr. M. B. Da Costa that the Reference:6:
Court committed an error in not granting any enhancement
from the sale deed year 1988 to 1992, the year of the
notification under Section 4. There is substance in the
contention since the Reference Court has ignored about
increase in prices only because of the absence of any
evidence on actual development at the time of acquisition.
This view is erroneous since a proximate land holder is
entitled to have increase in land prices taken into account
irrespective of any actual development on the property since
the land prices increased irrespective of such development. It
appears from the evidence led by the respondents themselves
that there was an increase of about 8% per year vide
evidence of one Jose F. de Albuquarque.
6. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the
respondents are entitled to an increase at the rate of 8% per
year from the year 1988 to 1992. Thus, the rate of
compensation will be Rs.190/- less 30% deduction = Rs.133/-
+ 8% addition per year = Rs.180.94. The appeal and cross
objections are disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.
S. A. BOBDE,J
at*:7:
No comments:
Post a Comment