Goa Housing Board Vs.
Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar & ANR
J U D G M E N T
two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 26.9.2008 in FA No.216/2003, the
first by the Goa Housing Board and the second by the land owner. As the ranks
of the parties differ, the Goa Housing Board (appellant in the first matter and
second respondent in the second matter) for whose benefit the acquisition was made
will be referred to as the `Board' or the appellant. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar
(first respondent in the first matter and appellant in the second matter) whose
land was acquired will be referred to as the `respondent'. The Land Acquisition
Officer (second respondent in the first matter and first respondent in the
second matter) will be referred to as `the LAO'.
an order dated 31.1.1977 passed by the Mamlatdar, Bardez, the respondent was
declared as the tenant of Survey No.102/1, Colvale village, Bardez, Goa measuring
374,000 sq. mts. under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964
(`Tenancy Act' for short). On payment of the purchase price of Rs.59,980
determined under sections 18C and 18D of the Tenancy Act, a purchase certificate
dated 6.5.1993 was issued to him under section 18H of the Tenancy Act
confirming that he was deemed to be the purchaser of the said land under the provisions
of the Tenancy Act, subject to the condition that the said land shall not be
transferred without the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar under section 18K of
the Tenancy Act. An extent of 358730 sq.m. of land in the said Survey No.102/1
belonging to the respondent was acquired in pursuance of the preliminary notification
dated 9.6.1994 (gazetted on 16.6.1994) corrected by corrigendum dated 26.9.1994
(gazetted on 27.9.1994).
LAO made an award dated 28.2.2003 determining the compensation payable as Rs.18
per sq.m. The respondent sought reference to the civil court for claiming a
higher compensation. The Reference court by its judgment and award dated
28.2.2003 declared the compensation awarded at Rs.18 per sq.m. to be proper and
reasonable and affirmed the award of the LAO. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent
filed an appeal before the High Court seeking increase in compensation.
the High Court, the Board contended that having regard to the provisions of the
Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 (`Land Use Act' for short), a tenant in
whom the land had vested under the Tenancy Act could not use it or allow it to
be used for any purpose other than agriculture; and therefore the valuation of such
land could not be with reference to its potential for use for non-agricultural
building purposes, but should be only as agricultural land. In support of its contention,
the Board relied upon a decision of a division bench of the High Court in Janaki
N. Morajkar vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (First Appeal No.221/2003 decided
on 9.2.2005). It was therefore submitted that the market value of agricultural
land determined by the reference court at Rs.18/- per sq.m. affirming the determination
by the LAO was correct and there was no need to increase the compensation.
High Court found that in regard to the adjoining land (Survey No.102/1A of
Colvale) acquired under the same notification, compensation was awarded at the rate
of Rs.136.50 per sq.m. As the land in Survey No.102/1 belonging to the landholder
was much larger, the High Court deducted Rs.36.50 per sq.m. and awarded Rs.100 per
sq.m. as the compensation. Though the High Court noticed the contention of the
Board with reference to the prohibition under the Land Use Act, and the
decision in Janaki N. Morajkar, it did not choose to follow the said decision.
Nor did it hold that the decision in Janaki N. Morajkar was wrongly decided or
The High Court
avoided the issue by observing that it was not necessary to go into the larger
controversy as to whether Janaki N.Morajkar was rightly decided. The High Court
held that the Board cannot pick and choose only some of the acquired lands for
applying the provisions of the Land Use Act; that the contention based on the
Land Use Act was not taken in regard to other lands acquired under the same notification,
was evident from the decision in Goa Housing Board vs. Pandurang V.Sawant - (FA
NO.204/2003 dated 16.4.2008); that compensation should be on the same lines in
regard to all lands acquired under the same notification and therefore 5it was
not necessary to examine the contention based on Land Use Act, that the
valuation should be only as the agricultural land.
aggrieved the Board has filed an appeal contending as follows:
(a) In view of the
bar contained in the Land Use Act in regard to use of land vested in a tenant under
the provisions of the Tenancy Act for any purpose other than agriculture,
compensation could not be determined with reference to the sales statistics
relating to residential plots on the assumption that the agricultural land in question
had development potential for residential use.
(b) Having regard to
clause 8 of section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides that
"the court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the
land on account of it being put to any use which is forbidden by any law or
opposed to public policy" and the bar contained in the Land Use Act in
regard to any use other than agriculture, the High Court could not have taken
note of the development and building potential of the acquired land for the
purpose of determining compensation.
(c) The High Court ought
to have followed the decision of another division bench of the High Court in Janaki
N. Morajkar, on an identical issue. If the High Court was not in agreement with
the view in Janaki N. Morajkar, it ought to have either referred it to a larger
bench, or distinguished it or held that it was inapplicable. It could not have
ignored the decision.
respondent has also filed an appeal contending that compensation at Rs.110 per
sq.m. was very low and claiming higher compensation. On the contentions urged,
the following questions arise :
(i) Having regard to
section 2 of the Land Use Act, whether the acquired land should be valued only
as agricultural land or whether it could be valued as land with development
potential for being used as building sites?
(ii) Whether the
compensation awarded by the High Court is excessive as contended by the Board
or inadequate as contended by the respondent and what should be the
the outset we may notice two subsequent events. The first is that the special leave
petition against the decision in Janaki N. Morajkar was dismissed by this Court
(Janaki N. Morajkar v. Spl. LAO - SLP(C) No.13195/2003 decided on 19.7.2005).
The second is that the appeal against the decision in Pandurang V.Sawant was
allowed by this Court. The market value of the acquired land, if it was not subject
to any prohibition regarding use under the Land Use Act, is now settled by the
decision of this court in regard to the neighbouring land, in Goa Housing Board
v. Pandurang V.Sawant [CA Nos.1992-93/2010 decided on 19.2.2010).
The said decision
relates to the adjoining land (Sy. No.102/1A) which was the subject matter of First
Appeal No.204/2003 before the High Court. In that case also the Land
Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.18 per sq.m. The reference court had
increased the compensation to Rs.150 per sq.m. and on appeal the High Court by judgment
dated 16.4.2008 had reduced it to Rs.136.50. But subsequently by order dated 29.1.2009
the judgment dated 16.4.2008 reducing the compensation to Rs.136.50 was corrected
and the compensation was determined as Rs.147 per sq.m.
This court reduced the
compensation to Rs.110 per sq.m. instead of Rs.147 per sq.m. Thus the market value
of freehold land which is not subject to any restriction regarding use or otherwise
as on 16.6.1994 was Rs.110/- per sq.m. This would mean that if the contention
of the respondent is accepted and the Land Use Act is found to be inapplicable the
compensation will have to be increased from Rs.100 to Rs.110 per sq.m. However
if the contention of the Board that the prohibition in regard to the land use applied
to the land in question having regard to the provisions of the Land Use Act is
accepted, then the market value will have to be determined taking note of such
may at this juncture refer to the provisions of the Goa Land Use Regulation Act,
1991. As it is a short Act and every provision thereof is relevant, we extract
below the said Act in entirety : "An Act to provide for regulation of use of
agricultural land for non- agricultural purposes. Be it enacted by the Legislative
Assembly of Goa in the Forty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows :-
8 1. Short title, extent
and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Goa Land Use (Regulation)
Act, 1991. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Goa. (3) It shall be deemed
to have come into force with effect from the 2nd day of November, 1990. 2. Regulation
of use of land. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Town
and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975), or in any plan or scheme made there
under, or in the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 (Act 9 of 1969), no land which is
vested in a tenant under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural
Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) shall be used or allowed to be used for any
purpose other than agriculture.
expression "agriculture", "land" and "tenant"
shall have the same meaning assigned to them under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural
Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964). 3. Exemption. - The provisions of this Act shall
not apply to acquisition of any land vested in a tenant under the Goa, Daman and
Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) by the State for a public purpose
under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of
regard to section 2 of the said Act, it is clear that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Town & Country Planning Act or any scheme thereunder or
the Land Revenue Code, no land which is vested in a tenant under the provisions
of the Tenancy Act shall be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than
agriculture. In this case it is not in dispute that the acquired land in
question vested in the land owner who was the tenant under the provisions of
the Tenancy Act. Therefore it cannot be disputed that the respondent could not
have used the land for any purpose other than agriculture or even allow anyone else
to use the same for any purpose other than agriculture.
The only manner in
which the land use could be changed was by an acquisition for a public purpose.
Thus the prohibition in regard to any use other than agriculture is not with
reference to any person or holder with reference to the land itself. Any land
which vested in a tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act attracted the bar
contained in section 2 of the Land Use Act and there was a permanent bar
against the use of such land for purposes other than agriculture either by the
tenant in whom the land is vested or any of his transferees or
question is whether such prohibition will affect the market value of the land.
The respondent submitted that this court had repeatedly held that all lands situated
in the same area and acquired by the same notification, should be awarded the
same compensation. He relied upon the judgment in K. Periasami v. Sub-Tehsildar
(Land Acquisition) [1994 (4) SCC 180] and Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram
Sharma [2004 (6) SCC 533].
There can be no doubt
that similarly situated land in the same area, having the same advantages and acquired
under the same notification should be awarded the same compensation. But the question
is when one land is a freehold land not subject to any restrictions in regard to
user and the 10adjoining land though similarly situated is subject to a permanent
restriction regarding user requiring it to be used only for agricultural purposes,
the question is whether the two lands can be termed as comparable lands which
should be subjected to the same compensation. We may give a few examples to
illustrate the position:
(i) A person
constructs two identical houses adjoining each other. He lets out one of them
and keeps the other vacant. After some years he sells both the properties. The house
sold with vacant possession will fetch a better price than the adjoining premises
which is in occupation of a tenant and therefore sold without possession. The
fact that both properties are situated adjoining each other and have the same area
of construction and face the same road will not mean that the price they will
fetch will be the same.
(ii) There are two
adjoining properties belonging to the same owner. One falls under area earmarked
as commercial and the other falls under area earmarked as residential. Though
they are similarly situated, the land which is capable of commercial use is likely
to fetch a higher price than a land earmarked for residential use.(iii) An agricultural
land with no development potential sold to another agriculturalist for
agricultural purposes will fetch a price which will be lower than the price
fetched by an agricultural land with potential of development into residential or
commercial plots sold for development into a layout of plots. (iv) A small plot
measures 10' x 20' and is suitable for construction of a shop.
If it is to be sold, it
will fetch a good price at par with prevailing market value. But if the said plot
is subject to an easementary right of passage in favour of the owner of the
property to the rear of the said plot and also subject to easementary rights of
light and air in favour of the owners of plots on either side, the plot cannot
be used for construction at all and will have to be kept as a vacant plot.
Necessarily its market value will be far less than the value of such a plot
which is not subject to such easements.
Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi [1988 (2) SCC
150], this court observed thus in regard to determination of market value : "The
market-value of a piece of property, for purposes of Section 23 of the Act, is
stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller
to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length.
The determination of market-value,
as one author put it, is the prediction of an economic event, viz, the
price-outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities.
Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under
bonafide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary
notification are the usual; and indeed the best, evidences of market-value.
Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar
lands is not available."
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona [1988 (3) SCC
751] this court set out the principle regarding determination of market value.
One of the principles mentioned is as under : "The determination has to be
made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of
notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a 12 hypothetical purchaser
willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable
price as on that day.
It has also to be assumed
that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable
price."Thereafter, this court stated that the exercise of determining the
market value has to be taken in a commonsense manner as a prudent man in a
business world would do and gave some illustrative facts which have a bearing
on the value :"Plus factors Minus factors
1. Smallness of size.
1. Largeness of area.
2. Proximity to a
2. Situation in the
interior at a distance from the road.
3. Frontage on a
road. 3. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
4. Nearness to
4. Lower level
requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
5. Regular shape.
5. Remoteness from
6. Level vis-a-vis
land under acquisition
6. Some special
disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
7. Special value for
an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may 13 have some very special
advantage." (emphasis supplied)
Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana [2010 (1) SCC 444], this court observed : "It
is in this context, in some cases, to avoid the need to differentiate the lands
acquired under a common notification for a common purpose, and to extend the
benefit of a uniform compensation, courts have observed that the purpose of
acquisition is also a relevant factor. The said observation may not apply in
all cases and all circumstances as the general rule is that the land owner is being
compensated for what he has lost and not with reference to the purpose of
The purpose of
acquisition can never be a factor to increase the market value of the acquired
land. We may give two examples. Where irrigated land belonging to 'A' and dry
land of 'B' and waste land of 'C' are acquired for purpose of submergence in a dam
project, neither 'B' nor 'C' can contend that they are entitled to the same
higher compensation which was awarded for the irrigated land, on the ground that
all the lands were acquired for the same purpose.
Nor can the Land Acquisition
Collector hold that in case of acquisition for submergence in a dam project,
irrigated land should be awarded lesser compensation equal to the value of
waste land, on the ground that purpose of acquisition is the same in regard to both.
The principle is that the quality (class) of land, the situation of the land,
the access to the land are all relevant factors for determination of the market
section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act enumerates the matters to be considered in
determining compensation, section 24 enumerates the matters to be neglected in
determining compensation. It provides : "But the court shall not take into
consideration-- x x x x x fifthly, any increase to the value of the land
acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it till be put when acquired; x
x x x eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being
put to any use which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy."
It is thus clear that
if there is a prohibition regarding use of the land for purposes other than agriculture,
the value of such land on account of the same being put to commercial,
residential or industrial use cannot form the basis of determining the market
an acquired land is subject to a statutory covenant that it can be used only for
agriculture and cannot be used for any other purpose necessarily it will have to
be sold as agricultural land as the land owner cannot sell it for any purpose
other than agriculture and the purchaser cannot sell it for any purpose other than
agriculture. As a consequence, the price fetched for such land will be low even
if it is situated near any urban area.
But if the same land
is not subject to any prohibition or restrictive covenant regarding use and has
the potential of being developed either as a residential layout or put to commercial
or industrial use, the land will fetch a much higher price; and the market value
of such other land with development potential can be determined with reference to
the sale price of nearby residential plots by making appropriate deduction for
development. On the other hand if the land is to be used only for agricultural
purposes, it may not be possible to arrive at the market value thereof with
reference to the market value of nearby residential plots.
Therefore we are of
the considered view that in regard to the land in question, in view of the
permanent restriction regarding user, that is it should only be used for
agricultural purposes, and the bar in regard to any non-agricultural use, it
will have to be valued only as an agricultural land and cannot be valued with
reference to sales statistics of other nearby lands which have the potential of
being used for urban development.
may also look at the matter from a slightly different perspective. A vacant
land has a particular value. If such land is in the occupation of a long term
lessee, and the owner wants to sell it without possession, he will only get a
far lesser price that what he would get as price for the same land if vacant possession
can be given to the purchaser. If such land in the occupation of a long term
lessee is acquired, as the lessee's rights are also taken over, the
compensation awarded for the land will be the full value as awarded for any
neighbouring property which is not subject to any tenancy. But the entire
compensation will not be received by the land owner/landlord.
The landlord will
have to share the compensation with the long term lessee. In other words, the landlord
will not get the entire value as compensation but will only get a part of the
market value and the tenant will get the balance. In that sense even if the market
value of the land without any restrictive covenants is considered to be Rs.110
per sq.m., having regard to the fact that the land is incapable of being used
for purposes other than agriculture and the price of Rs.110 is arrived at with
reference to a land which can be used for all purposes, an appropriate
percentage will have to be deducted from the value of Rs.110 per sq.m. to arrive
at the land subject to the statutory restriction regarding use.
the facts and circumstances, having regard to the prohibition regarding use of
land for any purpose other than agriculture, the land will have to be treated
and valued as agriculture land without any development potential for being used
as residential/commercial/industrial plots. We are of the view that at least
50% will have to be deducted from the market value of freehold land with development
potential to arrive at the market value of such land which can be used only for
agricultural purposes. As we have already determined the market value of neighbouring
land (which is not subject to the prohibition under Land Use Act) as Rs.110/-
per sq.m. We are of the view that an appropriate compensation for the acquired
land should be 50% thereof, which is Rs.55 per sq.m.
may now deal with contentions of the respondent that the prohibition under section
2 of the Land Use Act is inapplicable to the acquired land.
respondent relied on section 3 of the Land Use Act relating to exemption and provides
that the provisions of the Land Use Act shall not apply to acquisition of any
land vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act, by the State for a public purpose
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He contended that once a
notification is issued proposing to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition
Act, the provisions of the Land Use Act, in particular, the prohibition
contained in section 2 will not apply and the acquired land will have to be
valued as a freehold land without any restrictions.
the said argument appears to be attractive at first blush, on a careful reading
of the section, we find it to be without merit. The object of the Land Use Act
is to ensure that agricultural land which vested in a tenant as a deemed
purchaser on account of special provisions of the Tenancy Act subject to
payment of a nominal price, (thereby denying the ownership and the market value
to the original owner) is not sold or used for any non-agricultural purpose. If
the land was non-agricultural land, the tenant would not have got the title to
the land as a deemed purchaser and the land would have continued under the
ownership of the landlord.
The tenant got the
land under the statute, because it was agricultural land and he was the tenant
thereof, that too at a very nominal price, by virtue of the special provisions
of the Tenancy Act. Therefore the object of the Act is that no tenant in whom a
land had vested under the provisions of the Tenancy Act shall use the land for
any purpose other than agriculture. To see that he does not easily defeat the
said bar by transferring the property, a prohibition was attached to the land
itself by providing that no land which vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act
shall be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than agriculture. But
for the exemption contained in section 3, when such a property is acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose, the prohibition under
section 2 in regard to use of the land for any purpose other than agriculture
would have continued to apply.
Therefore it was
necessary to make an exemption in regard to the lands acquired for public purpose.
That is, even though a land which vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act was subject
to a covenant that it could not be used for any agricultural 19purpose in
future, once it was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose
and vested in the government, the prohibition contained under section 2 would cease
to operate, and the state government or the beneficiary of acquisition could
use it for any purpose. Section 3 is therefore a provision which entitles the
State Government or beneficiary of acquisition to use it for any purpose other than
The said section will
not enable the landowner to get the market value of the land as one with
non-agricultural potential. In so far as the landowner is concerned, the
compensation to which he is entitled would be what he would have got if he had sold
it in open market to a willing purchaser who could have used it only for
respondent referred to and relied upon the Preamble of the Act which provides
that the object of the Act is to provide for regulation and use of agricultural
land for non-agricultural purposes. He contended that if on the date when the
Land Use Act came into force, the land in question had ceased to be
agricultural land then the Land Use Act would be inapplicable.
He submitted that by
notification dated 9.11.1988 (gazetted on 24.11.1988) issued under section 13 of
the Goa, Daman and Diu Town & Country Planning Act, 1974 (for short `Town Planning
Act'), the said land (Sy. No.102/1) along with other lands in Colvale village were
notified for 20proposed change of use from cultivable land to industrial land;
and that by a notification dated 12.3.1990 (gazetted on 5.4.1990) issued under
section 15 read with section 17 of the Town Planning Act, the Chief Town Planner
notified the amended regional plan for Goa as approved by the government which showed
that the said land was earmarked for industrial use.
contended that on 5.4.1990, the land became an industrial land and consequently
ceased to be agricultural land before the Land Use Act came into force with
retrospective effect from 2.11.1990; and therefore the Land Use Act did not
apply to the land in question (Sy. No.102/1).
by notifying the regional plan showing certain agricultural lands as earmarked
for industrial purpose, those lands will not cease to be agricultural lands. Section
15 notification is only an initial step in a long process under the Town
Planning Act. Section 18 provided for declaration of planning area. Section 29
relates to preparation of an outline development plan. Section 31 provides for preparation
of comprehensive development plan.
Section 37 provides when
the development plan will come into operation. Section 41 empowers the state to
acquire any land reserved, required, or designated in a development plan as a
land needed for a public purpose. Section 42 provides that on and from the date
on which a public notice of the preparation of a development plan is published
under section 35(1), every land use covered by the development plan shall
conform to the provisions of the Act. Publication of a regional plan under section
15 therefore only means that on and from the date of publication of the
regional plan, any development programme or development work undertaken should conform
to the provisions of the Regional plan and nothing more.
As the land was not
converted to non-agricultural industrial use under Sections 30 and 32 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (`Land Revenue Code' for short) the land did
not become industrial land. Therefore the said contention based on section 15
of Town Planning Act has no merit. Once the Land Use Act came into force,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Town Planning Act or in any plan or
scheme made thereunder, a land vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act could not
be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than agriculture.
18A of the Tenancy Act provides that on the Tiller's Day (that is, 8.10.1976,
the date of introduction of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth
Amendment) Act, 1976 in the Legislative Assembly), every tenant shall subject to
the other provisions of the Act, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord
the land held by him as a tenant and such land shall vest in him free from such
encumbrances on that day. Section 18E provides that on determination of the
purchase price by the Mamlatdar under section 18C, the tenant shall deposit the
purchase price with the Mamlatdar as provided in section 18E.
Section 18H provides that
on deposit of the purchase price the Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate of purchase
to the tenant-purchaser in respect of the land; and the purchase will be in
effective on tenant-purchaser's failure to pay the purchase price. Section 18J
provides that where purchase of any land by the tenant under section 18A
becomes ineffective under section 18C or 18H or where the tenant fails to
exercise the right to purchase the land held by him within the specified period
under section 18B, the Mamlatdar may direct the land or part thereof, shall be
disposed of in the manner provided therein. Section 18K of the Tenancy Act
provides that no land purchased by a tenant under Chapter IIA of the Tenancy
Act shall be transferred by sale, gift, mortgage, lease or assignment, without the
previous sanction of the Mamlatdar.
In this case, in terms
of section 18E, the Mamlatdar required the respondent to deposit the purchase
price of Rs.59,840/- and on such deposit, a certificate of purchase was issued
to the respondent under section 18H only on 6.5.1993. It should be noted that
until such a certificate was issued, there was a possibility of resumption and disposal
under section 18J. By the time, the certificate of purchase in 23regard to the
land was issued on 6.5.1993, Goa Land Use (Regulations) Act, 1991 had came into
force on 2.11.1990.
Further, under section
30 of the Land Revenue Code, no land used for agriculture shall be used for any
non-agricultural purpose except with the permission of the Collector under
section 32 of the Code. Section 32 provides for the procedure for conversion of
use of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use. It requires an
application to be made by the land holder to the Collector and a permission being
granted by Collector for conversion, subject to payment of the fees prescribed
It is not the case of
the respondent that the land has been converted to non-agricultural use under sections
30 and 32 of the Land Revenue Code. In fact, before the issue of a purchase
certificate on 6.5.1993, it may not be possible for a tenant-purchaser to apply
for conversion to non-agricultural use. It is, thus, clear that the land in
question was agricultural land as on the date when the Land Use Act came into
force and when the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore,
the contention that it was not agricultural land, is rejected.
we allow the appeal filed by the Board and reduce the compensation awarded for
land from Rs.100/- per sq.m. to Rs.55 per sq.m. The respondent will be entitled
to all statutory benefits as awarded by the 24High Court. As a consequence the
appeal filed by the landowner for increase of compensation stands rejected.CA
No. 8542 2011 [@ SLP (C) No.3723/2009]
appeal relates to acquisition of 9,153 sq.m. of land in the said Sy. No.102/1
of Colvale village under preliminary notification dated 26.9.1991 belonging to the
respondent. The facts are the same as in the first two appeals as this appeal relates
to acquisition of the another portion of the same land belonging to the same
respondent, the only difference being that this appeal relates to an
acquisition initiated under preliminary notification dated 26.9.1991. In the
other two appeals, we had relied upon the decision of this Court in Goa Housing
Board vs. Panduranga V Samant [CA Nos.1992-93 of 2010 decided on 19.2.2010], wherein
this Court had determined compensation as Rs.110 per sq.m. in regard to
acquisition of neighbouring land under preliminary notification gazetted on
market value in Pandurang V.. Samant was with reference to a sale transaction
dated 23.3.1990. This Court had determined the market value as Rs.75 per sq.m.
as on 23.3.1990 and increased it by Rs.35 to arrive at the value as Rs.110/- after
four years, as on 16.6.1994. In this case, as the relevant date for purpose of determination
of market value is 26.9.1991, about one and half years after 23.3.1990 (the date
of the relied upon sale transaction).
By applying the same
principle, the market value of the land as on 26.9.1991 will be Rs.90 per sq.m.
The said value is with reference to land with potential for development. As the
land acquired was subject to a prohibition under the Land Use Act, for reasons stated
in the first two appeals, a deduction of 50% is made for to arrive at the value
of the land with agricultural potential only. Consequently, the market value of
the acquired land is determined as Rs.45/- per sq.m.
accordingly allow this appeal in part and reduce the compensation from Rs.140
per sq.m. to Rs.45 per sq.m. The respondent will be entitled to said
compensation with all statutory benefits under section 23(1A), section 23(2)
and section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
(R V Raveendran)
(A K Patnaik)