Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Executive Engineer vs Fregrenando Alex Nunes on 2 May, 2025
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6297 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 5166 OF 2023)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
FREGRENANDO ALEX NUNES & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6296 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 14678 OF 2023)
FREGRENANDO ALEX NUNES AND ANR. .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in First Appeal No. 95 of 2014
with Cross Objection No. 3 of 2014 whereunder the appeal filed by the
State and the cross objection filed by the land owners (for short
‘claimants’) came to be dismissed and the Reference Court judgment dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.05.09
16:51:42 IST
Reason:
12.2.2013 whereby the compensation was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per square
2
meter by modifying the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer
dated 11.2.2002 under which the compensation was fixed at Rs.30/- per
square meter has been affirmed.
2. The State by contending that the compensation enhanced by the
Reference Court which has been affirmed by High Court has preferred
Civil Appeal No.6297 of 2025 and the land owners have filed Civil Appeal
No.6296 of 2025 challenging the common judgment of the High Court
dated 22.02.2022 referred to hereinabove.
3. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and
perused the case papers.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
4. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the ‘Act’) came to be issued on 20.08.1999 whereunder the land
bearing Survey No. 178/1 situated at Sencoale, Taluka Mormugao
admeasuring 391 square meters amongst other lands owned by ‘claimants’
came to be acquired. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act
was issued on 4.12.1999 and thereafter rectified by notifying the total area
as 3,64,512 square meters. An award came to be passed under Section 11
on 11.2.2002, whereunder the compensation was determined at Rs.30/- per
3
square meter. Being aggrieved by the same a reference under Section 18 of
the Act was sought for by the land owners and the Reference Court by its
judgment and award dated 12.02.2013 enhanced the compensation by
determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,000/- per square
meter. The State, being aggrieved by the enhancement made by the
Reference Court, filed a First Appeal No. 95 of 2014 and the land owners
filed Cross-Objection No. 3 of 2014 seeking further enhancement of the
compensation whereunder the owners sought for determination of the
compensation at Rs.3,000/- per square meter. The High Court by a
common judgment dated 22.2.2022, as already noticed hereinabove,
dismissed both the appeals. Hence, these appeals.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State
that the High Court had erred in confirming the compensation determined
by the Reference Court on the ground that there was no basis or evidence
for arriving at the market value of the property. It is also contended that
the High Court had relied upon the sale deed dated 8.2.1993 which deed
relates to the acquired land though not produced before the Reference
Court since it reflected the price of the acquired land or market value as on
date of purchase and by adding 15% to the said value every year the market
value as on date of acquisition would be 682.35 per sq. meter and not
Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter and as such reference court could not have relied
4
upon sale deed dt. 01.08.1995 Ex.-11 to arrive at the market value of the
property at Rs.1,000/- per sq. meter. Hence, he prays for the appeal of the
State being allowed and the compensation as awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer being restored.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners-
claimants of the land would contend that reference court had relied upon
the sale deed dated 8.2.1993 which relates to the acquired land itself and
the said sale deed reflected the value of the land as on 1993 purchased by
the land owners and this could not be the basis and it is only the sale deed
dated 20.7.1995, Exhibit-11 which is most proximate to the Section 4(1)
notification which ought to have been considered for fixing market value as
it relates back to sale which took place 4 years prior to the present
acquisition proceedings.
7. It is submitted that the said sale deed being the best evidence, same
was noticed by the Reference Court in paragraph 12 of its judgment and yet
has ignored or in other words, not accepted value reflected therein only on
the ground that said land relating to the sale deed dt. 20.7.1995 Ex.-11 was
at a distance of one kilometer from the acquired land though it had identical
features. He would submit that by applying the sale exemplar method and
adopting the consideration reflected in Exhibit-11, the market value would
5
be Rs.1600/- per square meter and by adding 15% for every year, the
compensation be fixed accordingly in the event of this Court not accepting
the value of the land at Rs.3,000/- per square meter as pleaded before the
Reference Court, the High Court and this Court. Hence, he prays for
claimants’ appeal being allowed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of
the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and as affirmed by
the High Court, we are of the considered view that market value as
determined or compensation awarded for the acquired land measuring 391
square meters situated in Sencoale by the reference court is contrary to the
evidence available on record and for the reasons enumerated hereinbelow.
Hence, we are of the view that it requires to be enhanced.
9. The land owners acquired title to the land bearing Survey No. 178/1
at Sencoale at Taluk Mormugao under the sale deed dated 8.2.1993
(Ex.12). The said, land amongst others, came to be acquired under the
preliminary notification dated 20.8.1999 and subsequently by the
notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition
Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square
meter. However, the Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.1,000/- per
square meter. The owners of the land had placed reliance upon the sale
6
deed dated 20.07.1995 (Ex.11) to substantiate their claim for determination
of the market value of the land as reflected in the said sale deed. However,
the Reference Court did not accept the same on the ground that it is at a
distance of one kilometer from the acquired plot and also on the ground
that it is a bigger plot. On overall appreciation of evidence, the reference
court has proceeded to determine the value of the land acquired @
Rs.1,400/- per sq. meter.
10. It is trite law that the courts have to consider the best evidence
available for determination of the compensation and when sale exemplar
method is adopted, the sale instances proximate to the notification issued
under Section 4(1), if available, ought to be taken or, in other words, such
evidence if available ought not to be discarded until any valid or justifiable
reason being there. The petitioner neither relied upon the sale deed dated
8.2.1993 under which the land acquired was purchased nor sought for
award of compensation on the basis of said sale-deed. Since the sale deed
of the year 1993 which is more than six years prior to the date of Section 4
notification same could not have been considered by the reference court.
This Court in catena of judgments has consistently held that the distance of
time between the sale which is 4-5 years prior to the acquisition is to be
considered in determining the market value of the acquired land as it would
be the best evidence. For this proposition, the judgment of this Court in
7
Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs. Mahrashtra Industrial Development
Corporation and Others reported in (2022) 7 SCC 563 can be looked up.
This Court in the case of The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC
745 has held that sale instances preceding few years, i.e., 4-5 years is safe
to be relied upon when there are no other proximate sale instances and if it
is not available then only the sale instances of the five years can be looked
into.
11. The aforesaid proposition also gets support from the judgment of
this Court in Ram Avtar etc. Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. (Civil
Appeal Nos. 586-591 of 2017 decided on 20.09.2017) whereunder it has
been held that sale instances beyond 4 to 5 years may not be relied upon.
In the instant case, the Reference Court award, as affirmed by the High
Court, would clearly indicate that the sale instance of the same land which
was acquired, namely, the sale deed dated 8.2.1993 Ex.13 has been partly
relied upon by reference court for determination or fixing the compensation
which is contrary to the principles enunciated by this Court. It is for this
precise reason, we are of the considered view that the Reference Court
award as affirmed by the High Court is to be held as an erroneous finding
warranting our interference. Undisputedly the claimants had tendered the
sale deed dated 20.07.1995 (Ex.11) whereunder an extent of 3964.35 sq.
8
meters of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.63,74,960/-. This sale
deed, came into existence about four (4) years prior to acquisition of the
land of the claimants. This evidence, though available on record could not
have been ignored by Courts below. Merely because the land owned by the
appellants which was acquired measures only 391 square meters out of the
total extent of acquired land measuring 3,64,512, the Reference Court or
the High Court could not have ignored the sale deed dated 20.7.1995,
Exhibit-11. In fact, the Reference Court has also noticed that the acquired
land has better amenities like being proximity to School, College, Zuari
Nagar Industrial factory, Sencoale Industrial Estate and Junction or, in
other words, the potential of the acquired land would be much more than
the value reflected in the sale deed dated 20.7.1995 marked as Exhibit-11.
It is for this additional reason also, we are of the considered view that value
of the acquired land has to be fixed as reflected in the sale deed dated
20.7.1995, Exhibit-11, which has been erroneously ignored by both the
courts.
12. The total extent of the land belonging to the appellants in Civil
Appeal No. 6297 measures 391 square meters. The value of the land
measuring 3984.35 square meters appearing in the sale deed dated
20.7.1995 Exhibit-11 is Rs.63,74,960/- which would be Rs.1,600/- per
square meter. (63,74,960 ÷ 3984.35). The said sale deed is of the year
9
1995. It is quite natural that there would be increase in the value of the
land. The land in question which was acquired in 1999 as noticed
hereinabove, is within the proximity of school, colleges and industrial town
and as such the appreciation would not be less than 15% per year. Thus,
applying 15% enhancement or appreciation of the value of the land for
every year is adopted, the value of the land belonging to the claimants
which came to be acquired would be Rs.2433.40 per square meter and,
thus, the market value of the land as on the date of issuance of Section 4(1)
notification is determined at Rs.9,51,459.40 (2433.40 x 391 sq. meters).
Accordingly, the same is awarded with proportionate interest and all
additional benefits as indicated in the second and third paragraph of the
operative portion of the award of the Reference Court dated 12.2.2013.
13. In the result, Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2025 arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14678 of 2023 is hereby allowed in part and the
Civil Appeal No. 6297 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 5166 of 2023 stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand consigned to records. No order as to costs in both appeals.
………………………………,J.
[J.K. MAHESHWARI]
10
………………………………,J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
New Delhi;
May 02, 2025.
11
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5166/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-02-2022
in FA No. 95/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
at Goa]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
FREGRENANDO ALEX NUNES & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 14678/2023 (IX)
(IA No.115807/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 02-05-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR
Ms. Kritika, Adv.
Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Kritika, Adv.
Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave
12
Petition (C) No. 14678 of 2023 is allowed in part and Civil
Appeal No. 6297 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 5166 of 2023 stands dismissed in terms of the signed
order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand consigned to
record. No order as to costs in both the appeals.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (NAND KISHOR)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)