1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.6 OF 2003 WITH CROSS OBJECTION 1. State of Goa, through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SIP), I.D. Complex, Gogal, Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XII, PWD, Sanguem, Goa. …. Appellants V/s Smt. Lidia Barbosa (since deceased, through LR's) (a) Mr. Edgar Jose Narciso Barboza, aged 63 years, son of late Maria Line Olga Lidia Ramos Barboza and his wife, (a)(1) Miss Maria Hortencia Lia Barbosa, daughter of late Edgar Barbosa, unmarried, major of age; (a)(2) Mrs. Maria Lorraine Carlotta Barbosa, daughter of Edgar Barbosa, married, major of age and her husband, (a)(3) Mr. Ainsley Dick, son of late Conel Dick, major of age, married, All residing at “Barbosa Mansion”, Near B.P.S. Club, Margao – Goa. (b) Mrs. Glafira Veronica Agatha Fernandes e Barboza, aged 59 years, (c) Mr. Eric Abilio do Carmo Barboza, aged 61 years, son of late Maria Lina Olga Lidia Ramos Barboza and his wife, (d) Mrs. Arlene Lourdes D'Silva e Barboza, 2 aged 54 years, (e) Miss Maria Celina Hortencia Barboza, aged 58 years, daughter of late Maria Lina Olga Lidia Ramos Barboza, (f) Mr. Roy Oscar Eusebio Barboza, aged 51 years, son of late Maria Lina Olga Lidia Ramos Barboza, and his wife, (g) Mrs. Maria de Jesus da Piedade Costa Pinto e Barboza, aged 47 years, All Indian Nationals and all residing at Barboza Mansion, opposite B.P.S. Club, Margao-Goa. …. Respondents/Cross objectionist Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. G. Teles, advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : The appellants have filed the above appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 26/06/2002, passed in Land Acquisition Case No.69/1994, by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, partly allowing the reference sought by the original applicant, Smt. Lidia Barboza. By the impugned judgment and order, the compensation in respect of the acquired land has been enhanced from Rs.8/- to Rs.72/- per square meter in respect of the acquired land. The respondents have filed cross objection claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square meter. 3 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”, for short) State of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose. The said notification was published in the official gazette on 20/11/1986. An area of 100 square meters of Survey No.309/1, an area of 225 square meters of Survey No.309/2 and an area of 120 square meters of Survey No.309/3 belonging to the appellants- original respondents were part of the acquired land. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square meter. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 31/05/1989 and awarded Rs.8/- per square meter. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the original respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.150/- per square meter. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.69/1994, the respondents/claimants examined three witnesses namely, Celina Barboza/AW1, the constituted attorney of the claimant, Jose Almeida/AW2 and Ernesto Moniz/AW3, the registered valuer and produced valuation report Exhibit AW3/A Colly. Jose Almeida/AW2 produced two sale deeds dated 25/10/1984 and 16/06/1986 (Exhibit AW2/A & Exhibit AW2/B, respectively). The appellants examined Shri S.R. Paranjape as their witness, who produced award dated 7/02/2000 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.46/1994 in which Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter in respect of an area of 700 square meters of Survey 4 No.342/5 of Village Raia, which was acquired by the very same notification. The Reference Court , placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 12/11/1986, which was not produced in the case, but was produced in another Land Acquisition Case No.71/1994, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.72/- per square meter. 4. Mr. Shirodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is cryptic and the Reference Court has not given any reason why it did not rely upon award dated 7/02/2000, which was in respect of a plot acquired by the same notification, but chose to rely upon a sale deed dated 12/11/1986, which was not even produced in the case. He further submitted that the Reference Court was bound to consider the oral and documentary evidence produced by both parties and after analyzing the evidence arrived at compensation payable in respect of the acquired land on the basis of comparable sale instance or award. According to Mr. Shirodkar, the Reference Court has not undertaken the exercise which ought to have been done and has erred in relying upon a sale deed which was not even relied by the claimant herself. Mr. Shirodkar submitted that having regard to the finding given by the Reference Court, this is a fit case in which the impugned judgment/order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to the Reference Court for passing judgment on the basis of the evidence led by the parties after 5 analyzing the same. 5. Mr. Teles, the learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly concedes that he will have no objection if the matter is remanded to the Reference Court. He further made a grievance that the two sale deeds relied upon by the claimants have been rejected without any reason. 6. I carefully considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the findings given by the Reference Court, the following points arise for determination in the present matter: (i) Whether the matter deserves to be remanded to the Reference Court for non consideration of materials produced by both sides and consideration of the material not placed on record? (ii) Whether the compensation awarded is proper, fair and just and if not, what compensation the respondents are entitled to? 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the Reference Court in order to arrive at the compensation of Rs.72/- per square meter 6 in respect of the acquired land placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 12/11/1986 which was not even produced by the claimant on record. This exercise is patently unsustainable in law. The Reference Court was expected to consider the materials produced by both the sides in support of their case and after analyzing the evidence fix the compensation in respect of the acquired lands. The Reference Court being the first Court which has to adjudicate whether the compensation awarded is just and fair was expected to undertake this exercise which admittedly has not been undertaken. No doubt, this Court being Appellate Court is also entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence and record findings. However, having regard to the fact that the Reference Court has placed reliance upon the sale deed which was not even produced on record and not considered any other sale deed or award produced by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the submission made by Mr. Shirodkar, that the matter be remanded to the Reference Court and the concession given by Mr. Teles on behalf of the respondents deserve to be accepted. 8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and award and order dated 26/06/2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Reference Court to decide the reference under Land Acquisition No.69/1994 afresh after hearing both sides. The Reference 7 Court shall decide the matter on the basis of the materials already placed on record, in accordance with law. Since the reference is of the year, 1994, the Reference Court is directed to dispose of Land Acquisition Case No.69/1994 expeditiously and in any case on or before 30/11/2010. The parties either personally or through their Counsel shall appear before the Reference Court on 23/09/2010 at 10.00 a.m. Registry to ensure that Records and Proceedings are sent to the Reference Court expeditiously. 9. The appeal and the cross objection stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. A.P. LAVANDE, J. NH/-