1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2005 1. Ganpat Krishna Lolienkar 2. Prasad Vithal Lolienkar, Agas, Loliem, Canacona, Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, K.R.C.L. Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa 403 707. 2. The Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa 403 707. ... Respondents Shri C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2 2. The appellants herein are the applicants in Land Acquisition Case No.228/1995. Their land admeasuring 1720 sq. meters of survey No.71/4 of Loliem village was acquired along with other lands for the purpose of construction of new B.G. line for the Konkan Railway, by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 and published on Gazette dated 27-6-1991. 3. The applicants were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq. meter and were also awarded a sum of Rs.3,640/- as fruit value and Rs.3,296/- as the wood value. 4. The applicants had sought enhancement and had relied upon four sale deeds and one award and based on the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 15-6-1993, the learned reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. meter. The learned reference Court deducted the fruit value(and not wood value) paid for the trees from the market value of the land and assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.24/- per sq. meter. 5. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel on behalf of the 3 applicants submits that the learned reference Court could not have deducted the wood value. On the other hand, Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submits, and in my view, rightly that no wood value has been deducted and what has been deducted is the fruit value only. Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel also brought to my notice the Judgment of this Court dated 6-10-2010 in First Appeal No.42 of 2005 by which compensation in the same village and under the same notification has been fixed at Rs.21/- per sq. meter, and if that be so, there is no question of the applicant getting a higher compensation that Rs.30/- per sq. meter on the principle that once comparable sales method of valuation is adopted for determining the market value of land, it should generally hold good for determination of the market value of several acquired plots of land acquired by the same notification.(See AIR 1994 1160). 6. Considering that, I find that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD 4