1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 24/2001 Smt. Lalia Lopes (since deceased) represented through her legal heirs. (1.a) Antonio Luis (1.b) Philomena Luis (1.c) Ubaldo Luis (1.d) Anita Luis (1.e) Guilherme Luis major, all residents of Arossim, Mormugao- Goa. ......... Appellant. V/s. 1. Land Acquisition Officer, 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. IV, P.W.D. Fatorda – Margao. ........ Respondents. Ms. F. Misquita, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 14th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the order of remand which is proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to 2 refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant's land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Arossim beach road. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant applied to the Collector for making a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, the reference was made. By the Judgment and Award dated 30th June, 2000, the learned Reference Court partly enhanced the compensation. Aggrieved by the partial increase, the appellant is in appeal before this Court. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had produced on record a certified copy of a sale deed dated 28th October, 1987 at Exhibit A.3. She further submits that the learned Reference Court declined to refer tot he sale deed on the ground that the vendor and/or the purchaser under the sale deed was not examined. She submits that in view of Section 51 of the Land Acquisition Act, the certified copy of the sale deed was admissible in evidence, and the Reference Court ought to have relied upon the certified copy of the sale deed for determining the market value. She further submits that the decision rendered by the Reference Court 3 ignoring the sale deed is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530, the Supreme Court has held that certified copies of the sale deeds are admissible in evidence and it is not necessary to examine the vendor or the purchaser in proof of the sale deed. In my view, the Reference Court erred in ignoring the sale deed at Exhibit A.3 dated 28th October, 1987, a certified copy of which was relied upon by the appellant. Consequently, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30th June, 2000 of the Reference Court is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 28th October, 1987 at Exhibit A.3. All contentions are kept open. D.G. KARNIK, J. ssm.