-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2003 Shri Acacio Camara, r/o. Borda, Margao, Goa. (since deceased, represented by LR's) a) Smt Delia Gerson Camara b) Shri Aires Amarante Camara c) Smt Malini D' Souza e Camara d) Smt. Ivette Camara e Velho e) Shri Carmo Souza Velho f) Smt. Delia Virginia Camara e Pinto g) Shri Antonio Francisco Pinto h) Shri Alan Acacio Camara I) Smt Ana Dias e Camara All r/o. Pacheco road, Margao, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Deputy Collector (LAO) & Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Chairman, Goa, Daman & Diu, Housing Board, Junta Board, Panaji, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondent no.1. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for the Respondent no. 2. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 9 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2003, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no.18/1986. -2- 2. Pursuant to a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), bearing no. 22/118/80- RD dated 10.11.1980, published in the Official Gazette dated 20.11.1980, several pieces of land situated at Davorlim, Salcete, came to be acquired for implementation of the housing Scheme at Davorlim. Amongst the land acquired, an area of 41,675 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 10/1, belonging to the Appellants came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer had offered a compensation for the land acquired whilst passing the Award under Section 11 of the said Act at the rate of Rs.6/- per square metre. 3. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.110/- per square metre. 4. By the impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2003, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation for the land acquired to the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Shri Valmiki Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has totally misdirected himself in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired had high potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose. During -3- the course of his submissions, the learned Counsel has brought to my notice the Judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court whilst disposing of First Appeal No.331 of 2003 in respect of land acquired pursuant to the same notification and for the same purpose whereby an excess sum of Rs.4/- per square metre for the land acquired came to be granted. The learned Counsel further submitted that both the lands are contiguous to one another and have similar features and as such the Appellants are entitled for the same compensation as awarded by the Division Bench. 6. On the other hand, Shri H. D. Naik, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has not disputed the fact that the Division Bench of this Court had granted an excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre in respect of the land acquired in the said proceedings. The learned Counsel further did not dispute that both the lands were acquired pursuant to the same Notification and that they belonged to the same family. 7. Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal : 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation with respect to the land acquired at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq. meter? 8. On perusal of the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.08.2011, I find that this Court had enhanced the compensation for -4- the land acquired by awarding an excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre in respect of the land which was acquired pursuant to the same Notification and for the same purpose. Taking note of the submission of the learned Counsel, there is no dispute that both the lands are contiguous to one another and have similar features. As such I find no reason to award any different compensation for the land acquired in the present case. For the reasons stated in the said Judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 12.08.2011 in First Appeal no. 331 of 2003, I find that the Reference Court was not justified to enhance the compensation for the land acquired to Rs.7/- per square metre by awarding an enhancement. In fact the Appellants are entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre for the land acquired besides statutory benefits in accordance with law. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.07.2003 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The Appellants are entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre for the land acquired alongwith statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) 23(2) and Section 28 of the said Act in accordance with law. (iv) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*