-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 458 OF 2003 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2003 1. Shri Rajaram Rau Patil, aged 72 years, occupation, agriculture, resident of Maida, Taluka Sanguem-Goa, now at 776, Khan Bhag, Sangli. 2. Shri Anandrao Raosaheb Pati, aged 68 years, occupation agriculture, resident of Maida, Sanguem-Goa, now at 486, Gaon Bhag, Sambhare Road, Sangli (Registered Addresses) …... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Selaulim Irrigation Project, Panaji, Goa, now at Gogol, Margao, Goa. 2. The State of Goa, by its Chief Secretary, having his office at Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. (Registered Addresses) …... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 19 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Both the above Petitions are taken up for final disposal as the parties in both the Petitions are the same and both challenge similar Orders passed by the -2- learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, dated 25.04.2003, in Execution Proceedings no. 22/2002. 2. By the impugned Order, the learned District Judge directed that the amount of compensation payable pursuant to the enhancement granted by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to the said 'Act'), is to be disbursed only after the reference under Section 30 of the said Act pending before the Reference Court is disposed of. 3. Shri Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, pointed out that according to the Petitioners, there is no such reference pending under Section 30 of the said Act before any Reference Court and, as such, the amount of compensation is to be paid to the Petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Shri Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents, has disputed the said contention and pointed out that as there was a reference under Section 30 of the said Act pending, the learned District Judge, kept the payment of compensation in abeyance until such reference was finally disposed of. 5. Considering the rival contentions, in case there is no reference under Section 30 of the said Act pending adjudication or any such reference has already been disposed of, naturally, the amount of compensation would have to be disbursed in accordance with such final adjudication. Taking into consideration the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that no such -3- reference under Section 30 of the said Act is pending adjudication, it would be appropriate that the Petitioners should be given liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned District Judge, to the effect that no such reference is pending and/or such reference, if any, is already been finally disposed of. Reserving such liberty to the Petitioner, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order. 6. Subject to the liberty to the Petitioners to file an application as stated above, the Petitions stand disposed of. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, on 08.11.2011 at 10.00 a.m. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*