1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.270 OF 2005 Shri Mohandas Trivikram Prabhu (deceased) through LR's; 1(a) Smt. Geeta M. Prabhu Gaonkar, Wife of late Mohandas T. Prabhu Gaonkar, 72 years of age, widow, housewife, resident of House No.234, Maxem, Canacona, Goa. 1(b) Smt. Anuja A. Pandit, 40 years of age, daughter, married, resident of House No.HL-116, Housing Board, Gogol, Margao, Salcete, Goa. 1(c) Shri Atul R. Pandit, 44 years of age, resident of House No.HL-116, Housing Board, Gogol, Margao, Salcete, Goa. 1(d) Smt. Tanuja S. Prabhudessai, 39 years of age, daughter of late Mohandas T. Prabhu Gaonkar, resident of House No.32, Kavlem, Ponda, Goa. 1(e) Shri Sandip P. Prabhudessai, 43 years of age, resident of House No.32, Kavlem, Ponda, Goa. 1(f) Shri Dattaprasad M. Prabhu Gaonkar, 37 years of age, married, resident of House No.234, Maxem, Canacona, Goa. 1(g) Smt. Renuka D. Prabhu Goankar, 2 25 years of age, wife of Dattaprasad M. Prabhu Gaonkar, resident of House No.234, Maxem, Canacona. …. Appellants V/s. 1. Dy. Collector (L.A.), Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, WD-XIV (NH), PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …. Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 8th FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.83/2001 dated 22/06/2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. 2. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as "the said Act", dated 31/01/1991, land was acquired for the construction of the approach road to Talpona-Galgibag Bridge on National Highway - 17 admeasuring an area of 960 square metres from the property surveyed no.4/6 of Village Loliem, Canacona Taluka. By an award 3 dated 4/03/1993, issued under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.4/- per square metre was offered by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired, besides value of the agricultural produce and towards the forest produce existing therein. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.250/- per square metre. By judgment and award dated 22/06/2005, the Reference Court has rejected the reference filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and consequently came to a wrong conclusion that the appellants have failed to establish that they are entitled for any enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel pointed out that the appellants have produced sale instances which are comparable to the acquired land which have been erroneously discarded by the Reference Court. Learned Counsel took me through the evidence 4 on record and pointed out that there were more acquisitions which have taken place with regard to the same acquisition and some of the matters have been remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication. The learned Counsel pointed out the judgment in First Appeal No.237/2004 which according to him was in respect of the same property. The learned Counsel further submitted that in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of the present acquisition, another portion was acquired which was the subject matter of First Appeal No.237/2004. He further submitted that the land which was subject matter of both the acquisitions was part and parcel of the same property. The learned Counsel further submitted that while disposing of the First Appeal No.237/2004 which was the subject matter of the land of the same survey number, this Court had remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instances produced in the present case are substantially the same as those produced in the said First Appeal. The learned Counsel, as such, pointed out that in the interest of justice, the matter with regard to the acquisition in the present case deserves to be remanded for fresh adjudication before the Reference Court. 5. Ms. Susan Linhares, the learned Additional Government 5 Advocate has opposed the request of the learned Counsel for the appellants, but however submitted that in case any further evidence is adduced liberty be given to the respondents to lead further evidence in rebuttal. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that the subject matter of First Appeal No.237/2004 was an area of 930 square metres from the property bearing survey no.4/6 from the same village. The notification in the said case was issued on 24/11/1988 whereas in the present case the notification was issued on 31/01/1991. Both the lands were also acquired for the same purpose. The sale instance produced in First Appeal No.237/2004 was dated 5/06/1987. The same sale deed has also been relied upon for the purpose of enhancement of compensation in the present appeal and to parts of the same property of the appellants was sought to be acquired on two different occasions. 7. As the matter has been remanded while disposing of First Appeal No.237/2004 by judgment dated 8/10/2010, I find that, in the interest of justice, the subject matter of the present proceedings also deserves to be adjudicated afresh after remanding the matter to the Reference Court. Both the survey numbers in both the 6 acquisitions are the same and there is no reason to take any contrary view in the above appeal. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 22/06/2005 in Land Acquisition Case No.83/2000 passed by the First Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao is quashed and set aside. (iii) Land Acquisition Case No.83/2001 is restored to the file of the Reference Court. (iv) The Reference Court is directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. (v) In case any of the parties file an application for adducing any further evidence, the same shall be considered by the Reference Court on its own merits after hearing both the parties. (vi) Liberty is given to the parties to file appropriate application in order that the Land Acquisition Case No.248/1992 is taken up along with the above Land Acquisition Case, in accordance with law. 7 (vii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (viii) The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 14/03/2011 at 10.00 a.m. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-