1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.187 OF 2003 (i) The Executive Engineer, Works Division, XI, Irrigation Department, P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao. (ii) Special Land Acquisition Officer, (S.I.P.) I.D., Gogal, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Smt. Sunanda Uttam Dessai, W/o. late Uttam Dessai, Major in age, housewife, R/o. Pansulem, Canacona, since deceased through legal heirs. 1(a) Smt. Savita Shantaram Dessai, W/o. late Shantaram Uttam Dessai, Major in age, service. 1(b) Shri Shashikant Uttam Dessai, S/o. late Uttam P. Dessai, major in age, agriculturer, both r/o. Pansulem, Canacona, Goa. 2. Smt. Sudha Shripad Dessai, W/o. late Shripad Dessai, major in age, housewife, r/o. Pansulem, Canacona. 3. Shri Shabu Y. Dessai, major in age, Teacher, r/o. Pansulem, Canacona. …. Respondents Shri S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri P.A. Kamat, Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Shri P.A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 27/01/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.34/1993. 3. Pursuant to a notification dated 4/12/1989, published in the Official Gazette dated 21/12/1989, the respondents acquired land belonging to the appellants for the construction of minor irrigation scheme at Chapodi in Canacona Taluka admeasuring an area of 8125 square metres from the property surveyed under no.200/2 of village of Nagorcem, Palolem. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing an award under Section 11 of the said Act offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents 3 preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 27/01/2003, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri S. Vahidulla, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has not at all considered the material on record in its proper perspective to come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the instance relied upon by the Reference Court at Exhibit AW1/B is not at all comparable to the land acquired and, as such, the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the compensation. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record and pointed out that there is no material adduced by the respondents to establish that the amount 4 offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri P.A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the amount fixed by the Reference Court is on the lower side as according to him the Division Bench of this Court whilst passing the judgment dated 9/06/2010 in First Appeal No.220/2004 in respect of the land acquired for the same purpose prior to the present notification had fixed the compensation for the land acquired therein at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired in the present case and the land acquired in the said proceedings is located in the same village and are comparable to one another, and were acquired for the same purpose and, as such, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, following point for determination arises in the present appeal: 5 POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.12/- per square metre 7. On perusal of the judgment passed by this Court dated 9/06/2010 in First Appeal No.220 of 2004, I find that the subject matter of the land acquired therein was part of the property surveyed under no.200/4 admeasuring an area of 600 square metres and the other portion surveyed under no.201/1 admeasuring an area of 17,400 square metres situated at Nagorcem village. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act in the said proceedings was issued on 27/01/1989 and was published in the official gazette on 2/2/1989. The amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer therein was at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre for the paddy field portion and Rs.5/- per square metre in respect of bharad land. The Reference Court therein had enhanced the compensation to Rs.20/- per square metre. On perusal of the evidence on record in the present proceedings, I find that the land acquired in the present case is also situated in Nagorcem village and both the lands are of similar nature as they are classified as paddy fields. The Division Bench of this Court has while disposing of First Appeal No.220 of 6 2004 fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.20/-. As such, considering that the land acquired in the present proceedings and the land which was subject matter of the proceedings in the said First Appeal are for the same purpose, I find no reason not to accept the same compensation in the present case. It is also to be noted that both the lands are from the same survey number though different sub-divisions. The Land Acquisition Officer in both the cases had offered the same compensation for the lands acquired which also disclose the similarity of both the lands acquired. The notification under Section 4 in both the cases was also purchased in the same year. The respondents have not filed cross-objection assailing the compensation fixed by the Reference Court. Hence, in such circumstances, I find that the amount fixed by the Reference Court is fair and reasonable and not excessive. As such, I find no case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above appeal. Consequently, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-