-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2004 1. Salvador Vaz (now deceased) through his legal representatives i) Miss Joaquina Vaz, (now deceased) through her legal representative 2. Mrs. Raquela Albuquerque resident of H. No. 288, Nagoa, Verna, Salcete, Goa. 3. Mrs Ana Philipa Xavier, resident of H. No. 52, Nagoa, Verna, Salcete, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Deputy Collector (LAO) Margao, Salcete, Goa. 2. Industrial Development Corporation with office at Panaji, Goa. 3. Rosario Santana Fernandes, resident of H. No. 100, Poribhat, Verna, Salcete, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. M. B. D' Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. John A. Lobo, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent no. 2. Coram :- A. S. OKA F. M. REIS, JJ. Date : 28 th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. Oka, J.) We direct that this Appeal shall be separated from the other connected appeals. 2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the -2- Appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent. The Appellants are the claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 3. The land subject matter of acquisition, is surveyed under survey no. 31(Part), situated at Nagoa Village. The area of the acquired land is 10,075 square metres. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 22nd March, 1990. An Award was made under Section 11 of the said Act by which, the Land Acquisition Officer offered market value at the rate of Rs.2.20 per square metre. In the reference under Section 18 of the said Act, the Appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre and by the impugned Judgment and Award, the reference has been dismissed. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants relied upon an Award dated 3rd May, 1991 in Land Acquisition Case no. 269/1988, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao. He pointed out that the land subject matter of the said Award is adjacent to the acquired land and is comparable to the acquired land in all respects. He invited our attention to the evidence of Raquela Albuquerque/Aw.1. He pointed out that the witness has deposed that the land subject matter of the said Award is similar to the acquired land. He pointed out that the witness has stated that the land subject matter of the Award was in line with the acquired land. He submitted that the learned Reference Court has completely misread the evidence of the said witness and has rejected the reference only on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that the acquired land was similar to the land subject matter of the said Award. His submission is -3- that as the relevant date in respect of the said Award is 20th December, 1985, suitable escalation will have to be granted for arriving at the market value of the acquired land as on 22nd March, 1990. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent supported the Award by contending that the property subject matter of the said Award at exhibit 20, was not at all comparable with the acquired land. He pointed out that the Award at exhibit 20 discloses that construction activities were started on the land subject matter of the said Award. He pointed out that the expert appointed by the Appellants has not deposed about the location of the land subject matter of Award at exhibit 20. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions and have perused the records. In the examination in chief, Aw.1 stated that the land subject matter of the Award at exhibit 20 was close to the acquired land. She stated that lands were similar to the acquired land. In the cross examination, the witness stated that the said land was adjoining the acquired land. The expert examined by the Appellants remained silent as regards the land subject matter of the said Award. 7. A perusal of the Award at exhibit 20 shows that there is no reference to the area of the acquired land subject matter of the said Award. The acquisition seems to be for improvement of N.H. 17 Margao-Cortalim road (Verna by-pass). It may be stated here that the observations made by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned Judgment and especially in paragraphs 5 and 6, are not consistent with -4- the deposition of Aw.1. Aw.1 has stated that the land subject matter of the Award at exhibit 20 was adjacent to the acquired land and it was similar to the acquired land. However, evidence of the expert valuer examined by the Appellants is silent on this aspect. Assuming that the land subject matter of Award at exhibit 20 is comparable to the acquired land, there is no evidence as regards the area of the land subject matter of the Award at exhibit 20. Assuming that the land subject matter of the said Award was adjacent to the Acquired land, the area of the land is certainly relevant for considering the question as to whether the land subject matter of exhibit 20 is comparable to the acquired land. In the absence of the area, it is not possible to adjudicate upon the question whether the land subject matter of the said Award (exhibit 20) is comparable to the acquired land. On the issue of comparability, even the evidence of the expert examined by the Appellants is silent. Hence, with a view to give one more chance to the Appellant to prove their case, we are passing an Order of remand permitting the Appellants to lead further evidence as regards the said Award at exhibit 20. It is obvious that even the Respondents will be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. 8. Hence, Appeal is disposed of by passing the following Order :- ORDER (i) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 13th August, 2004, is quashed and set aside and the Land Acquisition Case no. 139/1997 is restored to the file of the District Court. (ii) The Parties are directed to appear before the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao, on 2nd August, 2010 at 2.30 p.m. -5- (iii) The learned Trial Judge will give an opportunity to the Appellants to lead further evidence as regards the Award at exhibit 20/C. The Appellants will be entitled to produce documents and lead further oral evidence. It is obvious that even the Respondents will be entitled to lead further evidence on the issue of comparability of the land subject matter of the Award at exhibit 20/C. (iv) After considering the evidence which is already on record and the evidence which will be adduced after the remand, the reference will be decided afresh in accordance with law. The Reference Court shall endeavour to decide the reference by end of January, 2011. (v) Appeal is partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (vi) We make it clear, that all the contentions of the parties are kept open. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*