JUDGMENT
N.A. Britto, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2/01/1999 of the learned Reference Court by which the claim for enhancement of compensation payable to the applicants was rejected.
3. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said reference case.
4. There is no dispute that by notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1881, the Government acquired 970 sq. mtrs. of the applicants’ land of Chalta No. 35 of P.T. Sheet No. 155 situated at Marlem, and, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded to the applicants compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mt.
5. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicants got a reference made, and in support of their case for enhancement, inter alia, produced three sale deeds namely, sale deed dated 10/03/1986-Exhibit AW1/N, sale deed dated 23/12/1985-Exhibit AW1/O and sale deed dated 17/01/1985-Exhibit AW1/P and examined Shri Rao/AW2 in support of the said sale deed Exhibit AW1/N. However, the learned reference Court came to the conclusion that none of the said sale deeds were duly proved by the applicant. This was then required by virtue of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . The learned Reference Court also noted that Shri Rao/AW2 was not the signatory or attesting witness to any of the said sale deeds and that he did not know what was the total price which was paid for the plots of the said sale deeds and ultimately proceeded to reject the reference made.
6. At the time of hearing of this appeal Shri Vahidulla, the learned Additional Government Advocate brought to my notice an unreported judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 78/1999 dated 20/02/2008. Admittedly, this judgment dealt with the land of Almeidas acquired for the same road and by virtue of the same notification dated 7/08/1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. In fact, it appears that the same District Judge dealt with the cases of enhancement of the present applicants, as well as the said Almeidas, and, while awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 105/- per sq. mt. to the said Almeidas by award dated 21/11/1998, rejected the claim of the present applicants by award dated 2/01/1999, impugned in this reference.
7. There is no doubt that Shri Vahidulla, the learned Additional Government Advocate has been more than fair in bringing to the notice of this Court the judgment dated 20/02/2008 in the case of the said Almeidas in First Appeal No. 78/1999. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate Shri Vahidulla submits that the same rate cannot be awarded to the case of the applicants because the applicants’ land was not similar to the land of the said Almeidas, who were awarded Rs. 105/- per sq. mt. by the learned Reference Court and which award was affirmed by this Court by judgment dated 20/02/2008.
8. Shri Vahidulla appears to be right. It can be seen from the award of the Reference Court in this case that the applicants were awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer a compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mt., while the said Almeidas, were awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 33/- per sq. mt. This itself would, prima facie, indicate that the land acquired of the present applicants was dissimilar to the land acquired of the said Almeidas. It can be seen from the judgment of this Court dated 20/02/2008 that in arriving at the market value of Rs. 105/- per sq. mt., the learned Reference Court had taken into consideration sale deed dated 23/12/1985, by which a plot of land admeasuring 318 sq. mts. was sold at the rate of Rs. 318/- per sq. mt. as well as the sale deed dated 10/03/1986 by which a plot of land admeasuring 755 sq. mts. was sold at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. mt. and after taking the sale deed dated 10/03/1986 as a guide and after taking certain deductions, the market value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 105/- per sq. mt. which was approved by this Court by virtue of the said judgment.
9. Learned Reference Court in considering the nature of the acquired land of the applicant has observed that the acquired land of the applicant was an internal road in respect of a subdivided plot and that it would be always used as a road for the public. The learned Reference Court also noted that when there is a road in a sub-divided plot, that road can be used not only by the people residing in the sub-divided property, but also by any persons visiting those persons’ residences in the sub-divided plots. In other words, it becomes a public road for the general public. Counsel on behalf of the applicants states that although the public were entitled to use the said road, the applicants have not lost their right of ownership of the said road which was reserved for the sub-division. Ordinarily, the applicants would have been entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 105/- per sq. mt. as fixed by the Reference Court by award dated 21/11/1998 upheld by this Court by judgment dated 20/02/2008 in First Appeal No. 78/1999 since it was awarded in respect of the land covered by the same notification. The Apex Court in Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mst. Saiyadan (dec.) by LR’s and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1160 has stated that if ‘Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of land’ is adopted for determining the market-value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds good for determination of the market-value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary Notification. That principle cannot be followed here because the applicants’ land was already a road meant for the sub-division which was acquired subsequently for the construction of a public road at Marlem and while the land of the said Almeidas, subject matter of First Appeal No. 78/1999, did not have such a road but only had a traditional access for which necessary deductions were taken before arriving at its market value at Rs. 105/- per sq. mt.
10. The applicants could not have made any other use of the said land reserved as a road, but what is important to be noted is that they had not lost the right of ownership in the said land reserved as a road. In a similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 176/2000, by unreported judgment dated 23/06/2004, had stated that what was acquired was a nominal or naked right of ownership in an existing road and in such a case, the market value to be given to such a land ought to be 20% of the value which would be fetched by the owners of the surrounding or adjacent lands, and, that being the position, in my view, the applicants could certainly be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 84/- per sq. mt. i.e. by making a deduction of 20% of the market value awarded by award dated 21/11/1998 and confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 78/1999.
11. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The market value payable to the applicants is enhanced from Rs. 22/- per sq. mt. to Rs. 84/- per sq. mt. with all consequential statutory benefits with no order as to costs.