1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.101 OF 2005 1. Deputy Collector & SDO, Ponda, Sub-division, Ponda, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XVIII (R.C.) P.W.D., Ponda, Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Smt. Gomati e Radha Tima Gaude, 2. Saku Tima Gaude, 3. Kashinath Tima Gaude, 4. Gopinath Tima Gaude, 5. Guna Tima Gaude, 6. Tulshi Tima Gaude, All residents of Varchawada, Dhavali, Ponda-Goa. …. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.B. Surjuse, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. The State of Goa has challenged the award dated 4/12/2004 in Land Acquisition Case No.53/1996. The applicants' (respondents, herein) land of Survey No.31/1 of Dhavli village in 2 Ponda Taluka was acquired by notification published on Gazette dated 6/11/1991. The applicants were tenants of the said property. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded `15/- per square metre to the applicants. Applicants had claimed enhancement at the rate of `500/- per square metre. 3. The learned Reference Court by relying on another award of the Land Acquisition Officer, has awarded to the applicants compensation at the rate of `45/- per square metre. The award relied upon also pertains to tenanted land acquired under notification dated 25/09/1991 situated in the adjoining Survey No.31/2 of the same village. As already stated, that award was also in respect of tenanted land, which according to Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, was granted to the applicants in that case with the approval of the Government as required under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 4. Shri Shirodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the applicants' land had restrictions placed on it by virtue of Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 and therefore, could not have been used for any other purpose than agriculture. 3 Learned Counsel further submits that the applicants had not produced any proof of income so as to assess compensation payable, by income method. Shri Shirodkar has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Janaki N. Morajkar V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer (South Goa) & Anr. (2005 (2) Goa L.R. 287). By this judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in view of Section 2 of the said Act, there was a clear bar for the applicant to use the said property for any other purpose other than agriculture. 5. The submission now made by Shri Shirodkar appears to have also been made before the learned Reference Court and the learned Reference Court noted that the applicants as tenants were prohibited from using the acquired land for any purpose other than agriculture and therefore the applicants would not be in a position to get the land converted for non agricultural purpose or for developing the land other than agriculture. Nevertheless, the learned Reference Court noted that the land in question was at a distance of only 100 metres from Ponda-Borim State highway and the applicants' land as per the Land Acquisition Officer was a mixed garden and there were various types of trees and some bungalows in said survey number and therefore was in a better 4 location than the land of the award Exhibit 25 by which compensation was paid at the rate of `45/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court observed that the present acquisition was later in point of time than the acquisition made by award under Exhibit 25 and, therefore, the applicants deserve to be given compensation at least at the rate of `45/- per square metre. 6. I do not find anything illegal in the approach adopted by the learned Reference Court. In my view, the Government having awarded compensation for adjoining tenanted land by award under Exhibit 25 cannot turn round and now say that the land in question is also tenanted and, therefore, could not have been put to any other use, other than agriculture and, therefore, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at `15/- per square metre should be maintained. 7. Admittedly, the land of award Exhibit 25 was adjacent land to the land acquired in this case, which was also otherwise mixed garden land. The Government paid compensation at the rate of `45/- for the tenanted land of award Exhibit 25 and therefore now cannot turn round and say that compensation for the land in question of the applicants should be less than the said amount. In 5 the facts of the case, I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-