1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.37 OF 2005 1. Dy. Collector (L.A.), Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI (R&B), PWD, Fatorda, Margao. …. Appellants V/s 1. Shri Abhay Naik, and his wife, 2. Shri Madhav S. Naik, and his wife, 3. Shri Sanjay S. Naik, and his wife, 4. Shri Deepak S. Naik, and his wife, All r/o House No.171, Pe. Miranda Road, Margao. …. Respondents Mr. Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the appellant. The respondents have again chosen to remain absent. They had remained absent yesterday as well. 2 2. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 6/10/2004 in LAC No.21/2002 by which compensation payable to the respondents has been enhanced from `71/- per square metre, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, to `590/- per square metre. 3. Respondents' land admeasuring 410 square metres from Chalta No.4, P.T. Sheet No.206 and 139 square metres from Chalta No.144 of P.T. Sheet No.207 was acquired by the Government by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, published on Gazette dated 17/09/1998 for the purpose of the construction and black topping of new road from Gaylin to Ana Fonte in Margao. By award dated 9/11/2000, the Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award compensation to the respondents for the said acquired land at the rate of `71/- per square metre. It appears that there is dispute between the respondents and some other persons as can be seen from para 2 of the impugned judgment. 4. Be that as it may, Shri Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the land in this First Appeal was acquired by the Government, inter alia, for beautification of an area 3 which is known as Ana Fonte in Margao. Shri Shirodkar has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 23/06/2010 in First Appeal No.199 of 2006 in the case of The Dy. Collector (L.A.) & Anr. V/s. Shri Yasin Tajdin Mavany has awarded compensation at the rate of `568/- per square metre and, therefore, learned Government Advocate submits that the same compensation be ordered to be paid to the respondents herein by allowing the appeal filed by the Government. 5. First Appeal No.199/2006 arose from LAC No.139/2001 and pertains to the same notification as in this case. The area acquired in the said First Appeal was 4105 square metres from Chalta No.38 of P.T. Sheet No.206 of Margao city. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was `71/- per square metre which was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to `629/- per square metre which has now been reduced by the learned Division Bench to `568/- per square metre. 6. The Apex Court in M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by LR's & Ors. (1994 SC 1160), has held that: “If 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of 4 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 the acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary Notification.” This principle has also been followed by Apex Court in Union of India V/s. Balram & Anr. (2010 (5) SCC 747) and by this Court in First Appeal No.209 of 2005 and Others by judgment dated 10/12/2010. 7. The land in this appeal was covered by the same notification as in First Appeal No.199/2006. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded the same amount of compensation in both the cases. Therefore, it is just and proper that the respondents herein ought to receive the same amount of compensation as has been awarded by the Division Bench in First Appeal No.199 of 2006 so as to bring about uniformity in the payment of compensation of the acquired lands in the same place and by the same notification. 8. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds. The impugned award dated 6/10/2004 is hereby modified in that the respondents now shall be paid enhanced compensation at the rate of `568/- per square metre with all consequential benefits. 5 9. First Appeal No.37 of 2005 is allowed. Impugned award accordingly modified with no order as to costs. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-