1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.152 OF 2005 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (N) Irrigation Department, Mapusa, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VII, Irrigation Department, Now under GTIDC, T.I.P. Complex, Post Office Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez – Goa. …. Appellants V/s Shri Rama Govind Raut R/o. Salem Village, Bicholim Taluka. …. Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. J. Vaz, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 22nd NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate and Shri J. Vaz, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent. 2. The Government had acquired the respondent's land surveyed under No.130/1 (part) of which he was a co-owner for Tilari irrigation project and by award dated 26/03/1993 the market value 2 was fixed at `5/- per square metre. The respondent sought a reference made and got the said compensation enhanced to `15/- per square metre. 3. This appeal is filed on behalf of the State against the said award of enhancement of the learned Reference Court dated 29/07/2002 in Land Acquisition Case No.135/96. 4. Counsel on behalf of the parties have brought to my notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 31/3/2008 in First Appeal No.69/2003. It can be seen from that judgment that with reference to the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884, in three appeals the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of `25/- per square metre and in the case from which First Appeal No.69/2003 was filed, the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of `20/- per square metre. The other appeals also pertain to Survey No.130/1 (part). 5. Since for land covered by the same notification and also of the same survey number some of the owners of the land have received enhanced compensation at the rate of ` 3 25/- and `20/- per square metre, there is no question of reducing the compensation paid in this case from `15/- per square metre any further. In other words, the learned Division Bench did not interfere with the award of `20/- per square metre because earlier in three cases compensation awarded was at the rate of `25/- per square metre. Therefore, there is no question of interfering with an award of `15/- per square metre, in this case. 6. As a result, I find there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-