1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 238/2005 1. Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Margao, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2. The Director of Sports & Cultural Affairs, Panaji, Goa. ......... Appellants. Versus Shri Balcrishna S. Naik, R/o. Chaudi, Canacona, Goa. ......... Respondents. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ. & N.A. BRITTO, J. Date : 22nd January, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award of the District Judge, Margao, whereby the reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants from Rs. 3/- per sq. metre to Rs. 34/- per sq. metre, with all statutory benefits. The argument raised before us in relation to the challenge to the impugned Judgment and 2 Award is primarily based on the premise that the reference Court has relied upon the Judgment and Award in Land Acquisition Case No. 223/1990, decided on 13.4.1993 (Exhibit 18) and the subject-matter of the land acquired under the Notification in the said Judgment and Award is less than the land sought to be acquired under the present Notification. This argument is without any basis. It is settled principle of law that the land acquisition references can form a relevant piece of evidence and, in fact, one of the safest criteria. The reference Court relied upon the decision of the reference Court in L.A.C. No.223/90 related to the adjoining land and is a comparable instance. Once a comparable instance of the evidence (Exhibit-18), a copy of which is available on record, we see no reason why the same should be not adopted and followed by the Court in the subsequent proceedings, particularly when no detailed affidavit was filed and the statements of AW.1 and AW.2 fully supported the case. We may also notice that the area of the land acquired in the previous reference was smaller to the area acquired under the current notification, per se, would be a no ground for declining the market value of the land. 2. Once the market value has been determined in accordance 3 with the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is, otherwise, a just and fair market value of the land, this Court will not interfere with it on that ground. It is inconsequential that larger chunk of land was acquired under the subsequent notification and, in any case, that distinction would not alter the fate of the decision. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE ssm.