1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 137/2001. 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.) and Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji. 2. District & Sessions Judge, Panaji, Goa. … Appellants. V/s 1. Smt. Sitadevi alias Jaya Raghuraj Deshprabhu, 2. Devendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu, 3. Smt. Sunita Devendra Deshprabhu, 4. Shri Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu, 5. Smt. Rupa Jitendra Deshprabhu, 6. Smt. Shilpa Satish Ugrankar, 7. Dr. Satish Shripad Ugrankar, 8. Smt. Devikar Dilip Kulkarni, 9. Shri Dilip Mhabal Kulkarni, All the above legal representatives of late Raghuraj Vassudev Deshprabhu (original Owner) represented by their duly constituted Attorney, Shri Atmaram Babi Sinai Dessai, r/o Mauswado, Pernem, Goa. … Respondents. 2 Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants. None present for the Respondents. Coram : D. G. KARNIK , J. DATE : 1st October 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The request of Addl. Government Advocate for adjournment is rejected and the matter is taken up for hearing. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Addl. District Judge, North Goa, Mapusa awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. metre for the acquired land. 2. The respondent is a co-owner having 1/4th share in the land bearing survey No. 499/11 (part) situated at village Pernem ( now Municipal Council of Pernem). By a notification dated 10.11.1988, an area of 4,200 sq. metres of land out of survey No. 499/11 was proposed to be acquired by the appellant for the purpose of 3 construction of a Court complex, namely a Court building and Judicial Officer's Quarters. After completing all the formalities, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer ( LAO for short) on 28.8.1989 acquiring the land. The LAO awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. metre for the acquired land. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondent as also the other co-owners made separate applications for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act for short). The application for reference made by the present respondent was referred to the District Court and was numbered as LAC No. 77/1992. The land reference made by the other co-owner was numbered as LAC No. 76/1992. They were heard separately and decided by two separate judgments. 3. So far as the reference made by the claimant is concerned, the reference court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties as also the decision given by the Court in LAC No. 76/1992, came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was 120/- per sq. metre and accordingly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. metre plus solatium and interest. Aggrieved by the decision of the reference court, the State is in 4 appeal. 4. Before the reference court, the respondent adduced evidence of four witnesses including himself. He also examined a Valuer and also relied upon two sale instances. He also relied upon the award passed by the reference court in L.A.C. No. 76/1992. So far as the other sale deeds are concerned, the reference court held that they were not comparable sale instances and they did not rely on them. The reference court, however relied on the decision in LAC No. 76/1992 in which compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. metre. The reference court held that since the market value of land was held to be Rs. 120/- per sq. metre in the other reference pertaining to the same property, that was the best possible evidence about the market value of land and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs. 120/- per sq. metre. 5. The decision of the reference court given in LAC No. 76/1992 which has been relied upon by the reference court in this award was subjected to an appeal under First Appeal No. 176/2001. The decision has become final by way of abatement of the First Appeal No. 176/2001. As the decision has become final as to the 5 market value in respect of very piece of land, in a reference filed by a co-owner, the decision of the reference court in relying on its own decision cannot be faulted with. For the reasons stated herein above there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. D. G. KARNIK, J MF/-