1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2000 Shri Rama Parab and others. ... Appellants versus Deputy Collector & S.D.O. Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa Sub-Division, Mapusa, Goa and another. ... Respondents Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Shri P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2009. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellants and Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Appellants herein are the owners of the subject land of survey No.388/Part which came to be acquired by virtue of notification issued under 2 Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on Gazette dated 20-9-1984. 3. An area of 9575 was acquired and compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- in respect of 9235 sq. meters, and Rs.1/- in respect of 340 sq. meters was awarded to the Appellants. Dissatisfied with the said award the Appellants had got a reference made and in the said reference had claimed enhancement at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter and in support thereof the Appellants had examined their attorney and produced a sale deed dated 14-1-1987 by which an area of about 500 sq. meters was sold at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meters and in support of the same the Appellants had examined H. Malik. The Respondents had also examined a witness in support of their case who had himself clearly stated that there were no developed plots in the vicinity of the acquired lands and at the relevant time the price in the locality was Rs.25/- per sq. meter. To a Court a question as regards the price in the locality the said Respondents witness had stated that it was based on guess work. He is a witness who was an education inspector and was connected with the acquisition of the subject land which was acquired for a playground. 4. The learned trial Court by the impugned Judgment dated 30-8-1999 rejected the reference on the ground that the sale instance could not be compared with the acquired land as the sale instance was in respect of a property admeasuring 500 sq. meters while the acquired property was about 9000 sq. meters. The learned Reference Court also noted that the sale instance in respect of 3 the acquired land was close to the house of AW2/H. Malik while there was a house only at a distance of 100 meters from the acquired land. 5. Admittedly, the subject land was acquired for setting up a playground and prior to that there was already a school and a rest house is existing in the remaining property of the Appellants, and the acquired property was on the side of the road which proceeds from Dodamarg to Bicholim and the nearest market was at Bicholim which was at a distance of 1.5 kms. Admittedly also though the sale instance was 2 ½ years later in point of time from the date of acquisition, the same could not be ignored because admittedly there were no other sale deeds of develop plots in the locality as stated by RW1 and the opinion given by the Respondents' own witness regarding the prevailing prices in the locality simply could not be brushed aside. Likewise, the sale deed could not be ignored because it was of a smaller plot of land as compared to the subject land. Considering the above factors, in my view, compensation of at least Rs.10/- per sq. meter ought to have been granted to the Appellants. 6. Consequently, the appeal deserves to succeed and the impugned Order is hereby set aside and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.10/- per sq. meters with all consequential benefits. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD