1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2005 1. Shri Appa Bablo Gaunkar 2. Shri Narayan B. Gaunkar since deceased represented by his legal representatives 2(a) Kamal Gaunkar 2(b) Sapna Gaunkar 2(c) Linat Gaunkar 2(d) Deviani Gaonkar 2(e) Antima Gaonkar All residents of Nadran, Mollem 3. Shiva V. Gaunkar 4. Shri Gokuldas B. Gaonkar since deceased represented by his legal representatives 4(a) Sangita Gaonkar 4(b) Yuraj @ Narayan Gaonkar both residents of Nandran Mollem 5. Shri Mahadev V. Gaonkar 6. Shri Sonaba V. Gaonkar 7. Shankar G. Gaunkar ( now deceased ) Through his legal representatives 7(a) Smt. Rukmini Shankar Gaunkar 7(b) Pradeep Shankar Gaunkar 7(c) Neeta Shankar Gaunkar 7(d) Guno Shankar Gaunkar 8. Krishna G. Gaunkar 9. Uttam G. Gaonkar 10.Bhisso G. Gaonkar 11.Laxman R. Gaonkar 12.Shri Govind R. Gaonkar 13.Shri Toliyo R. Gaonkar since deceased represented by 2 his legal representatives 13(a) Gopiki Toliyo Goankar 13(b) Ragoba Toliyo Gaonkar 13(c) Sumati Raghu Gaonkar 13(d) Rohidas Toliyo Goankar 13(e) Rohini Rohidas Gaonkar 13(f) Suresh Toliyo Gaonkar 13(g) Jani Suresh Gaonkar All of full age, residing at Nandran, Mollem, Sanguem, Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1. The Land Acquisition Officer, Forest Settlement Officer Government of Goa, Panaji Goa. ... Respondent. Mr. M. B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM:- S. J. VAZIFDAR & U.D. SALVI, JJ. Dated:- 5th April, 2010. JUDGMENT (Per S. J. VAZIFDAR,J ) 1. The Appeal is against the order and judgment of the learned 3 Reference Court dated 5.4.2005 allowing partly a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application for enhancement of compensation was rejected. It is against that part of the order, the First Appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants did not dispute the fact that the Appellants would not be entitled for enhancement as the valuation was done on the yield basis. 3. In the circumstances, the First Appeal is dismissed. S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. U.D. SALVI, J. at*