1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.137/2000. 1. State of Goa, Represented by Deputy Collector and L.A.O., Quepem – Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XIV (NH) Public Works Department, Gogol, Margao-Goa ..... Appellants. Versus 1. Ashok Morto Poi Angle, 2. Shivnath Morto Poi Angle, since deceased through Legal heirs 2(a) Smt.Shantabai Shivnath Pai Angle, (expired on 10.11.2001) widow of Shivnath Morto Pai Angle; 2(b) Shri Motiram Shivnath Pai Angle son of Shri Shivnath Morto Pai Angle and his wife 2(c) Smt. Jayanti Motiram Pai Angle; 2(d) Shri Sandeep Shivnath Pai Angle, son of Shri Shivnath Morto Pai Angle; and his wife 2(e) Smt. Sheela Sandeep Pai Angle, All residing at Dandevado, Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. 3. Xaxicanta Morto Poi Angle, since deceased through legal heirs, 2 3(a) Smt. Sushilabai Xaxicanta Pai Angle, widow of Shri Xaxicanta Morto Pai Angle; 3(b) Ms. Pallavi Xaxicanta Pai Angle, daughter of Shri Xaxicanta Morto Pai Angle ; 3(c) Ms. Prita Xaxicanta Pai Angle, daughter of Shri Xaxicanta Morto Pai Angle; 3(d) Shri Prashant Xaxicanta Pai Angle, son of Shri Xaxicanta Morto Pai Angle; All residing at Dandevado, Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa. 4. Naguesh Morto Poi Angle (expired) through its legal heirs : (a) Sulabha Naguesh Pai Angle, (b) Manoj Naguesh Pai Angle, Flat No.T3, Building No.43, Kurtarkar Classic, Near Power house, Aquem, Margao-Goa. ..... Respondents Ms. W. Coutinho, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2(b) to 2(e), 3(a) to 3(d). None present for the other respondent No.4. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date :- 27 th November,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. W. Coutinho, learned Government Advocate 3 for the appellants and Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2(b) to 2(e), 3(a) to 3(d). None present for the respondent No.4. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.176/1992 by which the Reference Court partly allowed the reference enhancing compensation from Rs.13 to 100 per square metre. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) which was published in the official gazette dated 18.08.1988, the Government of Goa acquired lands belonging to different persons for the purpose of widening and improvement of National Highway-17. The land admeasuring 187 square metres from Survey No.422/5 from village Chinchinim, belonging to the respondents was part of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.13 per square metre. Aggrieved, the respondents sought reference claiming compensation @ Rs.175 per square metre. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs.100 per square metre. Before the Reference Court, the respondent examined A.W.1 Ashok Anglo, A.W.2 Gilman Coutinho, A.W.3 and Gabriel Rodrigues, Aw.4. The 4 respondents produced two sale deeds Exh.AW1/B dated 13.08.1985 and another sale deed dated 17.05.1984 Exh.AW1/C. The Reference Court by placing relying as the basis of the sale deed dated 13.08.1985 and after making appropriate deductions and considering 10 % increase in the price of land per year, fixed the market rate of the acquired land @ Rs.100 per square metre. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. Ms. W. Coutinho, learned Government Counsel appearing for the appellants, has invited my attention to two unreported judgments delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, first one dated 07.10.2005 in First Appeal No.63/1999 and the second judgment dated 27.10.2005 in First Appeal No.30/01 preferred by the appellants herein. In the said judgments, the Reference Court has placed reliance upon the judgment in First Appeal No.32/1999 dated 6.10.2005 by which this Court fixed the compensation in respect of land acquired by the same notification @ Rs.100 per square metre. It has not been disputed by the learned Government Counsel that the lands involved in First Appeal Nos.32/1999 and 63/1999 and 30/2001 and the land involved in the present appeal, are similarly situated and, admittedly, have been acquired by the same notification. In view of the settled legal position that where different lands are acquired by the same notification and, are similar in nature, all the persons interested in respect of the said lands, 5 are entitled to the same compensation, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for by this Court with the impugned award. The Reference Court, in the present mater, has fixed the compensation @ Rs.100 per square metre. As such, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. A.P. LAVANDE, J. SMA