Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 A. The learned Additional District Judge noted that a copy of the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 1983 was already on record through the evidence of A.W. 1, Mr. Joaquim Celestao Pinto, who had appeared as a Special Attorney of the appellant/Communidade and it was marked as Exh. A-l/C. On the claimant placing a copy of the said award on record afresh after the remand by this Court, it came to be marked as Exh. 20. In addition to this award of comparable instance, there were two more documents which were relied upon by the claimant namely the sale instance at Exh. AW I/A and Exh. AW 1/B. The sale deed at Exh. AW I/A was in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 264 sq. meters and the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 24.50 per sq. meter in the year 1975. The land in Survey No. 253 was situated at a distance of 2 kms. from the acquired land. The second sale instance at Exh. AW 1/B was from Survey No. 197/10 wherein a plot admeasuring 12 sq. meters was acquired by the Government somewhere in the year 1983 and the market value was fixed at Rs. 36.40 per sq. meter. The learned District Judge in his award dated 24th February, 1992, had noted from the record that the land in Survey No. 253 in sale instance at Exh. AW I/A was located at a distance not less than 3 kms. from Survey No. 197 and the land in sale instance at Exh. AW 1 /B was a very small plot of 12 sq. meters which could not be the comparable sale instance. The learned District Judge had also taken into consideration the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 1983 which was the land from Survey No. 146 and was located at a distance of 2 1/2 kms. from the subject land. The award was in respect of land admeasuring 3,730 sq. meters and it was on the Candolim breach. He also noted that A.W. 2, H.R. Chico, while in the witness box had admitted that the said land under Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 1983 was totally different from the present claimant's land. All these three sale instances were duly assessed by the learned District Judge and that they were very small plots. He also noted that the lands were located in the heart of Candolim village whereas the land of the claimant was located at a distance of about 3 kms. from the Candolim market. The claimant had failed to establish parity in respect of the instances relied upon as noted by the learned District Judge.

6. In a way, challenge in this appeal is against both the awards inasmuch as the award dated 29th April, 2002, has to be read as an extension to the earlier award dated 24th February, 1992, which was not set aside by this Court while remanding the reference in First Appeal No. 68 of 1992.

7. Mr. M.S. Sonak, the learned Counsel for the appellant/Communidade of Candolim strenuously urged before us that fixing the market value at Rs. 10/- was nothing but a pittance and the subject land being a plateau with more scenerio value deserved much more market value and more so by considering the fact that it was connected by a tar road and had development activities around it. It was pointed out that the Aguada Beach Resort was located very close to the subject land and the Taj Hotel had acquired huge property (land) and at a much higher compensation. It was further submitted that the claimant's other plot of land located in Survey No. 95 was severed and became inaccessible because of the subject acquisition. This was an additional factor which the reference Court ought to have noted but in the impugned award, this ground has not been considered at all, urged the learned Counsel.

The subject land belongs to the claimant/Communidade and, therefore, it is not a free-hold land. Under Article 153 of the Code of Communidades, the Governor General has the powers to authorize the exchange of lands of Communidades and determine its requests for grant of leases. Under Articles 179 and 180 (Chap. VII regarding insolvent Communidades), the lands belonging to Communidades can be sold only when in liquidation proceedings the assets are found to be inadequate. In short, the land belonging to Communidades could not be utilised for a purpose which will enhance its market value and the restrictions imposed on such land under the Code of Communidades clearly shows that its free use is not permissible. When the land under acquisition suffers statutory restrictions, the obvious consequences that follow is on its market value and, therefore, such land cannot be compared with other sale instances in respect of the free-hold land.