1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NOS.151 of 2006 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.2 OF 2007 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.269 OF 2007 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.6 OF 2008 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.23 OF 2008. FIRST APPEAL NO.151 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division 1 (bldgs.) PWD, Panaji, Goa .. Appellants. Versus 1. Shri Damodar Ramnath Comotim Bambolkar, R/o Bambolkar Building, Fountainhas, Panaji-Goa. .. Respondent. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. S. Joshi,Advocate for the respondent. WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2 OF 2007. Shri Damodar Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar, resident of Bambolkar House, .. Cross objectioner Fontainhas, Panaji, Goa in1st Appeal No.151/2006) Vs. 1. Land Acquisition Officer, 2 PWD (cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division 1 (bldgs.) .. Respondent PWD, Panaji, Goa (Appellants in 1st Appeal No.151/2006) Mr. M. S. Joshi, Advocate for the cross objectioner. Mr. S.S.Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO.269 OF 2007 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division 1 (bldgs.) PWD, Panaji, Goa .. Appellants. Versus 1. Shri Vassant Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar r/o. Bambolkar Building, Fontainhas, Panaji-Goa .. Respondent. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the respondent. WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 6 OF 2008. Shri Vassant Ramnath Camotim Bambolkar r/o. Bambolkar Building, .. Cross objectioner Fontainhas, Panaji-Goa in1st Appeal No.269/2007) Vs. 3 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division 1 (bldgs.) .. Respondents PWD, Panaji, Goa (Appellants in 1st Appeal No.269/2007) Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. S.S.Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. AND FIRST APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division 1 (bldg.) .. Appellants. PWD, Panaji, Goa (original respondents) Versus 1. Shri Edgar Francisco Dias Valles, through power of Attorney holder Smt.Augusta Iria Valles, r/o.St. Inez, Panaji .. Respondent Goa. (original applicant.) Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the respondent. WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 23 OF 2008. Shri Edgar Francisco Dias Valles, through power of Attorney holder Smt.Augusta 4 Iria Valles, r/o.St. Inez, Panaji Goa. .. Cross objectioner Vs. 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division 1 (bldgs.) .. Respondents PWD, Panaji, Goa Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date : - 22 nd June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. S. OKA, J) We have heard the learned Advocate General in support of the appeals. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel and other learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in these appeals. F.A. No.151/2006 takes an exception to the judgment and award dated 23rd December, 2005 passed by the District Judge in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894'). The award has been made in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001. 5 2. As far as F.A. No.269 of 2007 is concerned, the challenge is to the Award made in Land Acquisition Case No.22/2001, which was a reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. Based on the Award made in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001, the Reference Court granted enhancement in the market value. 3. As far as F.A. No.155/2008 is concerned, the challenge is to the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case No.64/2001, which was reference under Section 18 of the said act of 1894. The said reference was allowed by placing reliance on the decision in Land Acquisition Case No.22/2001, which is the subject matter of F.A. No.269/2007. As the acquisition relates to the same notification, we have taken up the appeals for hearing together. 4. The learned Advocate General invited our attention to the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001. He submitted that the reference has been decided in a cryptic manner without even considering the merits of the evidence adduced by the parties. He submitted that assuming that the claimant was seeking enhancement by adopting comparison method, there is no discussion made of 6 the sale instances by the learned Reference Court. The Reference Court has not applied its mind to the question whether the sale instances were of comparable lands. He submitted that the impugned judgment is perverse in as much as it shows non-application of mind. He submitted that enhancement has been granted by the judgment and award subject matter of F.A. No.269/2007 by relying upon the award made in the said Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001. He also pointed out that enhancement has been granted by judgment subject matter of challenge in F.A. No.155/2008 by relying upon the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.22/2001, which is the subject matter of challenge in F.A. No.269/2007. 5. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel and other learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even assuming that the judgment is not properly worded, as evidence adduced by the parties was before the Court, this Court will have to decide the appeal on the basis of evidence on record. 6. We have given careful consideration to the 7 submissions. Perusal of the judgment under challenge in F.A.No.151/2006 shows that the respondent claimant was relying upon the various sale instances in the form of sale deeds. Reliance is placed on the report of expert valuer. 7. An award made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act is in the nature of an offer. The claimant, who does not accept the award and who files an application under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation is in position of a plaintiff. The burden is on him to prove before the Reference Court that the amount offered is inadequate. If the claimant invokes comparison method, it is for the claimant to produce and to prove the comparable sale instances. It is for him to establish that the lands subject matter of the sale instances are comparable to acquired land. The Reference Court is required to apply its mind and determine whether the lands, which are the subject matter of sale instances produced by the claimants are comparable to the acquired land. If the Reference Court finds that the lands are comparable, the Reference Court is required to consider the positive and negative factors. Perusal of the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001 shows that the same is based on surmises 8 and conjectures and there is no discussion of the evidence adduced by the claimant and there is no consideration of sale instances. What is recorded is only an opinion of the learned Judge that the claimant is entitled to market value @ Rs.1200/- per square meter. We find that the reference has been decided in most unsatisfactorily manner by the learned Judge. 8. If reference would have been decided by a proper judgment, the benefit of a reasoned judgment could have been available to this Court as the First Appellate Court. However, in the present case, there is a cryptic and non- speaking judgment. We, therefore, deem it proper that the judgment and award should be set aside with a direction to the Reference Court to hear the parties and to decide the reference afresh. 9. As far as F.A. No.269/2007 is concerned, as pointed out earlier, the judgment is based only on the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001, which is the subject matter of the challenge in F.A. No.151/2006. The judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case No.64/2001, which is the subject matter of challenge in F.A. No.155/2008 is based only on the award in the aforesaid 9 Land Acquisition Case No.22/2001. Therefore, the judgments and awards subject matter of the two appeals will have to be set aside and the order of remand will have to be passed. 10. As we are proceeding to pass an order of remand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent claimants in these appeals states that as the Reference Court is bound to consider the matter afresh, the respondents/ claimants are not pressing the cross-objections. He submitted that the necessary refund of court fees be ordered. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we pass the following order : (i) The impugned judgments and awards are quashed and set aside and the Land Acquisition cases subject matter of the impugned judgments and awards are restored. (ii) We direct the parties to appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji at Goa on Monday 26th July, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. (iii) We direct the learned Principal District Judge to hear the submissions of the parties and to decide the Land Acquisition Cases in accordance with law. (iv) It is obvious that all the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open and the learned District Judge will have to consider the entire evidence afresh and 10 decide the references in accordance with law. (v) The reference Court will not be influenced by the order of this Court setting aside the impugned awards. We make it clear that the impugned awards have been set aside on the ground that the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.20/2001 is not properly delivered, and that it is most unsatisfactory. (vi) We direct the learned District Judge to expeditiously dispose of the Land Acquisition Cases and in any event on or before 30th November, 2010. (vii) The cross-objections are dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that cross-objections are not pressed in view of order of remand. Therefore, notwithstanding the dismissal of the cross-objections, the learned District Judge shall consider the claim of the claimants on its own merits. (viii) The respondents in the appeals will be entitled to refund the court fees paid on the cross-objections in accordance with the rules. (ix) It will be open for the appellants to withdraw the amounts deposited in this Court. (x) The appeals are partly allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. A. S. OKA, J F. M. REIS, J. SMA 11