-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2006 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.), Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s Shri Vishvanath Ragunath Audi R/o. Acsona, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. Since deceased by legal heirs 1. Ravindra Vishwanath Audi, 2. Mrs. Laximi Ravindra Audi, r/o. H. No. 763, Acsona, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 5 th August, 2011. JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 26.04.2006, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no. 72/2001. Pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), land was acquired for the construction and black topping of Tambdimati Majilvado main Varca-Margao road no.4 and Pequeno Pulwado road in Village Benaulim, admeasuring an area of 350 square metres from the property surveyed under -2- survey no. 10/7 and a portion admeasuring 225 square metres, of the property surveyed under no. 263/5 of Village Benaulim, belonged to the Respondent. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has offered the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre. By the impugned Judgment dated 26.04.2006, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. 2. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal. 3. Shri M. Salkar, the learned Government Advocate assailed the impugned Judgment and submitted that the Reference Court is not at all justified in enhancing the compensation in favour of the Respondent. The learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land was a narrow strip of land which had no development potentiality and as such the enhancement of compensation would not arise. The learned Counsel further submitted that compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre is just and proper considering the locality of the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence adduced by the Respondent to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation. Learned Government Advocate as such pointed out that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set -3- aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Coutinho, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has supported the impugned Judgment and stated that there is ample evidence on record to substantiate the fact that the Respondents have established that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired is situated in Benaulim Village which is close to the Arabian sea and land in the vicinity had high potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose. The learned Counsel has further submitted that this Court while disposing the First Appeal no. 230/2004, has upheld the compensation at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. The learned Counsel as such submitted that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court while passing the impugned Judgment and, as such, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal : 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre ? 6. On perusal of the records and the submission of the learned Counsel, I find that while disposing First Appeal no. 152/2004 with First Appeal no. 230/2004, this Court by Judgment dated 01.10.2010, had dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Appellants whereby the Reference Court had fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. On going through the said -4- Judgment, I find that the subject matter of the land acquired therein was in respect of a Notification dated 25.01.1991, published in the Official Gazette dated 28.02.1991 for the same purpose as is the case in the present proceedings. The Land Acquisition Officer therein had also offered a sum of Rs.8/- per square metre for the land acquired and the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.65/-. In the present case, I find that the land sought to be acquired is pursuant to the same Notification and for the same purpose and both the lands are also located in Benaulim Village. As such, I find no reason to award any different compensation for the land acquired in the present proceedings. Shri Salkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants was unable to point out any dissimilar factor with regard to the land acquired in the present proceedings and the land which was the subject matter of First Appeals disposed of by Judgment dated 01.10.2010 . Considering that the Land Acquisition Officer had offered the same sum of Rs.8/- per square metre in respect of both the lands acquired, there is no reason to consider that the nature of both the lands are different. For the reasons stated in the Judgment passed by this Court dated 01.10.2010, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned Judgment whereby the compensation is fixed at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre for the land acquired. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the above Appeal and, consequently, the same stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*