IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2011 SMT. AURA SEBASTEANA CARDOZO ... Appellant Versus THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 18th July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Thali, learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and award dated 12th October, 2010 by which the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('The Act' for short) has been dismissed. An area admeasuring 1050 square metres belonging to the appellant was acquired by the State Government by issuing notification dated 24th February, 2006 under Section 4 of The Act. The Collector awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. The applicant sought reference under Section 18 of The Act claiming the compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre and also claimed compensation for severance without quantifying the same. 3. The applicant relied upon the sale deed dated 8th July, 2005 by which the applicant had purchased the land at Rs.200/- per square metre from the tenant, who had purchased the same from the landlord by sale deed dated 8th January, 2003 at the rate of Rs.5 per square metre. 4. The Reference Court after considering the evidence led by the applicant rejected the reference, inter alia, holding that the property which was subject matter of acquisition was agricultural tenanted land and as such, could be valued on the basis of the agriculture yield. In so far as the compensation for severance is concerned, the Reference Court held that no evidence was led in respect thereto and consequently, rejected the reference. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, I find that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and award since the agricultural tenanted land could not have been sold by the tenant, who had purchased it from the original landlord. It is pertinent to note that the original tenant herself had purchased the property at the rate of Rs.5/- on 8th January, 2003 and Section 4 notification was issued on 24th February, 2006. As such, even considering the escalation at the rate of 10 % p.a. on compounding basis, the rate of the acquired land on the date of Section 4 notification would come to Rs.6.65/- per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janaki N. Morajkar Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another; 2005(3) All M R 824 has held that the agricultural tenanted land cannot be valued on the basis of building potential and the enhancement can be claimed only on the basis of agricultural yield. It is pertinent to note that Special Leave Petition against that judgment and order has been dismissed by the Apex Court and thereby the said judgment had reached finality and as such, is binding on all the Reference Courts. 6. In so far as the compensation for severance is concerned except for the bald statement of the applicant and her witness, no other evidence has been led to quantify the compensation which the applicant is entitled to by way of severance charges. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in my opinion, the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for enhancement in respect of severance charges. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find that no case has been made out by the appellant for interference with the impugned judgment and award. The award made by the Reference Court cannot be faulted. Hence, the appeal is dismissed summarily. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA