1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.31 OF 2005 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa KRCL, Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa. 2. The Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Rawanfond, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s Smt. Milagrina Pereir e Xavier, House No.39, Aquem Baixo, Rawanfond, Navelim, Salcete, Goa. …. Respondent Mr. A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Braganza, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 7th OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and is directed against the award of the learned Reference Court dated 2/04/2004, by which compensation payable has been enhanced from ` 3/- per square metre to ` 300/- per square metre based on a sale deed dated 29/10/1987 of a developed plot of 410 square metres sold at ` 250/- per square metre. 2 2. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the respondent whose land was acquired deserves to be granted compensation at the rate of ` 160/- per square metre. This submission is made based on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 31/08/2004 in First Appeal No.62/2002. Shri Bhobe submits that the land acquired in this case is similar to the land in First Appeal No.62/2002 and, therefore, they should receive the same compensation. 3. This case pertains to Survey No.268/35, arising from Land Acquisition Case No.327/1995. Land Acquisition Case No.347/1995 pertains to Survey No.263/8 and 263/9, adjacent to one another. By award dated 26/02/1999, the learned Reference Court was pleased to award ` 160/- per square metre. The said award dated 26/02/1999 in Land Acquisition Case No.347/1995 was based on a sale deed dated 1/07/1987. In First Appeal No.62/2002 what was involved was Chalta No.6 of P.T. Sheet No.516. 4. Shri Coelho Pereira, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, submits that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.62/2002 (in the case of Special 3 Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. V/s. Aurora M.F. Do Barretto & Ors.) cannot come in the way of the respondent, because the learned Reference Court after application of mind and following the principles of law has fixed the compensation. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the appellate powers of this Court could be exercised only in case the finding of the Reference Court is otherwise perverse. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is not a rule that because in a particular case particular compensation was given that the same should be given in other cases. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the land in this case was abutting the Margao Quepem road, while the land in First Appeal No.62/2002 arising from Land Acquisition Case No.347/95 was not. 5. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. 6. There is no dispute that the lands in all the three cases were covered by the same notification gazetted on 16/05/1991, which were acquired to set up a concrete sleeper plant, Diesel Loco Shed, etc. for Konkan Railway Corporation at Margao and were also covered by the same award and were paid ` 3/- per square metre. 4 This shows that the lands in all the three cases were similar in nature. An effort has been made by learned Senior Counsel to say that the respondent's land in this case was abutting the Margao- Quepem road. Not that the land of Chalta No.6 of P.T. Sheet No.516 involved in Land Acquisition Case No.347/95 was not. If the respondent's land was a property having coconut, mango and other trees so was also the property of Chalta No.6 of P.T. Sheet No.516 which was subject matter of First Appeal No.62/2002 which was also mixed garden land having coconut, mango and other trees. 7. Admittedly, the lands acquired were situated in the same locality namely at Aquem-Baixo and the sale deeds produced were of lands situated at Aquem-Alto. The lands were acquired by the same notification, for the same purpose and were located at Aquem-Baixo. 8. This Court by judgment dated 31/08/2004 valued the land of Chalta No.6 of P.T. Sheet No.516 on the basis of the award of the learned Reference Court dated 26/02/1999 which was upheld in First Appeal No.98/1999 and which was in relation to survey no.263/8 and 263/9. In fact the present appellants ought to have 5 brought to the notice of the Reference Court the award dated 26/02/1999 in LAC No.347/95 but that was not done and the impugned award came to be passed based on another sale deed dated 29/10/1987, after giving appreciation on compounding basis at 10%. The learned Reference Court could also found out whether there was any previous award in relation to acquisition under the same notification. That similar lands in same village covered by the same notification ought to receive the same valuation is a principle which needs to be followed with a view to bring about uniformity of payment of compensation. 9. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.62/2002 awarded compensation to the land acquired under Chalta no.6 of P.T. Sheet No.516 based on the value given to Survey No.263/8 and 263/9 in LAC No.347/95. The said price was fixed based on several decisions of the Apex Court. 10. In M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by LR's & Ors. (1994 SC 1160), the Apex Court has held 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 6 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.” 11. In Union of India V/s. Shri Dhyan Singh & Ors. (2000 AIR SCW 4936) the Apex Court held as follows: “In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.4405 of 1997 in which the land value has been fixed at ` 16,750/- per bigha for lands covered by the same notification there is no reason not to adopt the same value as for the land involved in this appeal also.” 12. Again In Bhim Singh and Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. (AIR 2003 SC 4382) the Apex Court has held that even otherwise, when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one of such proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in view of their Lordships, the best method would be to look at the earlier judgments and awards. Therefore, the High Court could not be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments. 13. Yet again in Delhi Development Authority V/s. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. (JT 2004 (6) SC 422) the Supreme Court held that: “Having regard to the undisputed facts and the material placed on record and in the light of the judgment of this Court in Karan Singh's case, it is not 7 possible for us to take a different view as regards market value of the lands covered by the same notification, issued under section 4(1) of the Act.” 14. Similar lands, situated in the same village, acquired under the same notification need to be given same compensation so as to avoid disparity in payment of compensation. 15. In the circumstances, therefore, I have no other option but to allow the appeal and modify the impugned award dated 2/04/2004 and grant compensation to the respondents at the rate of ` 160/- per square metre with all consequential statutory benefits. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-