1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 68/1998 Goa Housing Board, through its Chairman, having Office at Alto Betim, Porvorim, Goa. ......... Appellant. Versus. 1. Shri Madan Waman Chodankar (since deceased) represented by his LRs. 1a) Smt. Medha Madan Chodankar, widow, 1b) Miss Monali Madan Chodankar, major of age, daughter, 1c) Shri Jatin Madan Chodankar, major of age, son, 1d) Master Jaimeen Madan Chodankar, aged 12 years, son, represented by his mother Smt. Medha Chodankar, All residing at Betim, Bardez, Goa. 2. Deputy Collector (Rev) & Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji. 3. Executive Engineer (N) North Division, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. ......... Respondents. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for respondents No.1(a) to 1(d). Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 9th June, 2008 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.) This appeal is by the Goa Housing Board, against the Judgment and Award dated 2.5.1998, passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 54/94. A land admeasuring 24,465 sq. metres from Survey Nos. 132/1 and 132/2 has been acquired by the Government for implementation of housing activities of the Goa Housing Board at Alto Betim. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17.5.1990. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq. metre. The respondents applied for a reference and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.750/- per sq. metre. The land, in question, is situated at Alto Betim in Bardez Taluka. 3. The reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs. 150/- per sq. metre in respect of 15,465 sq. metres' of land. In regard to the remaining land, it maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The enhancement was made by the reference Court principally on the basis of an Award produced by AW.1. The Section 4 Notification in respect of that acquisition was published 2 years prior to the 3 notification in the present case. Taking into account the rate of compensation awarded in that case i.e. Rs.200/- per sq. metre, the reference Court deducted 25 % i.e. Rs.50/- and worked out the market price of the suit plot to Rs.150/- per sq. metre in respect of an area of 15,465 sq. metres, excluding the deep valley area which was maintained at Rs.125/- per sq. metre. 4. Mr. Nadkarni, the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the reference to the earlier award is completely misplaced and the reference Court has chosen to refer to that award on the ground that it was close to Mandovi bridge which was closer to Panaji than the land in question; and further that the land in question was more towards the interior in comparison to the land in that award which was abutting the Mapusa-Panaji highway. According to the learned Counsel there is nothing in the evidence of the witness who produced the said Award or any other evidence on record which could have justified any comparison between the two lands. We find substance in this contention. AW.1, Madan Chodankar produced the award Exhibit AW.1/A and merely stated that “In 1988 Govt. had acquired some land near the Nehru Bridge on the Betim side and in that LAO has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. mt. I am producing a copy of the said award (copy marked by consent exh. AW.1/A)”. The witness has not pointed out any reason why the two lands should be compared to each other. 4 Indeed, we find no material on record which could have entitled the Court to compare the land which was acquired under the Award Exhibit AW.1/A and the land, in question, for the purpose of comparing the compensation payable in respect of the present land. It is well settled that similarities in two pieces of land should be pointed out to the Court and the Court must advert to them and weigh them for the purpose of determining the compensation. In the present case, since there was no evidence, the Court has not been able to do that and yet it has adopted the measure from the earlier award and reduced it by 25 %. In our view, this is not correct or legal. 6. In this view of the matter, we set aside the award and remand it to the reference Court for afresh determination, in accordance with law. The reference Court shall decide the matter not later than six months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. 7. Order accordingly. S.A. BOBDE, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.