1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 21 OF 2005 1. The Deputy Collector, (L.A.) and Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji-Goa. 2. The Director, Directorate of Transport, Junta House, Panaji, Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. Smt. Salima Bi Hussain Aga. 2. Smt. Farida Bi Karola Both r/o Bandarwada, Bicholim, Goa. ... Respondents Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Appellants and Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents. 2 2. Applicants' land admeasuring 195 sq. meters from survey No.35/2 of Bordem village of Bicholim Taluka was acquired by notification dated 10-10-1991. There was also a structure on the acquired land. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to offer to the applicants compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter and Rs.32,143/- for the structure. The applicants had claimed enhancement in the reference made. In the reference, the applicants had relied upon two sale deeds, namely Exh.17-sale deed dated 5-8-1986 and Exh.18-sale deed dated 18-4-1991. However, the learned reference Court rejected the said sale deeds on the ground that the applicants had not examined the vendor or vendee of the said sale deeds, and considering that the acquired land was near the developed area held that the applicants were entitled to compensation at Rs.40/- per sq. meter. 4. The learned reference Court has not adopted any known method of valuation. It is now well settled that comparable sales method is the preferred method of valuation. As per the prevailing law, there was no requirement for the applicants to have examined the vendor or vendee of the sale deeds. In this context, reference could be made to the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya and others((2004) 8 SCC 270). Both the sale deeds were in respect of lands situated at close distance and could have been considered for assessing the market value of the land. 3 5. In the facts of the case, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 8-3-2004 of the learned reference Court is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji to decide the reference afresh after taking into consideration the said sale deeds and the other documents relied upon by the parties. The learned Principal District Judge would be free to make over the reference to any other District Judge as deemed fit. 6. Parties to appear before the learned Principal District Judge at Panaji on 15-10-2010 at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings. The reference to be decided within six weeks thereafter. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD