1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.2 OF 2006 1. Land Acquisition Officer, PWD (Cell), Panaji. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao. …. Appellants V/s Shri Martinho Wilson das Chagas e Silva, r/o. H.No.1134-A, Mazilvaddo, Benaulim, Salcete-Goa. …. Respondent Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Judas Chagas E Silva, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 1st MARCH, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10/01/2005 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.28/2000. 2. By a notification dated 26/06/1992 published in the Official Gazette dated 6/08/1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act', land belonging to the respondent came to be acquired from the property 2 under survey no.1/10 and 164/5, admeasuring an area of 475 square metres, for the purpose of construction and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel road via Wadi Pequeno Pulwado and Pulwado in Village Panchayat Benaulim, Salcete. 3. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act, a sum of Rs.8/- per square metre was offered to the respondent. Dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.250/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 10/01/2005, the Reference Court has partly allowed the reference and fixed the compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre, besides statutory benefits. 4. Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is no justification for the Reference Court to enhance the compensation as offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was a narrow strip of land which had only agricultural potentiality. Learned Counsel took me through the 3 evidence on record and pointed out that there is no evidence adduced by the respondent to show that the sale instances produced by him are comparable to the land acquired. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and, as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Judas Chagas E Silva, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is no justification for any interference in the impugned judgment. According to the learned Counsel, the Reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation on the basis of the material on record. The learned Counsel further pointed out that this Court has disposed of appeals preferred by the respondent in respect of land in the same notification accepting the awards passed by the Reference Court. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that the subject matter of the land acquired in the present case is surveyed under no.1/10 and 164/5 admeasuring an area of 475 square metres which is situated at Benaulim village and sought to be acquired pursuant to a notification dated 26/06/1992. The said land which is surveyed 4 under no.1/10 was the subject matter of another acquisition dated 21/01/1991, which was acquired for the purpose of construction and black topping of Tambdimati Majilwado main Varca Margao road no.4 and Pequeno Pulwado road in Village Panchayat Benaulim, Salcete Taluka. The learned Reference Court by Judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.69/2001 dated 29/09/2003 fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. The said judgment was impugned in First Appeal No.100/2004 which came to be disposed of by oral judgment dated 26/08/2010. The said appeal filed by the appellants came to be rejected. On perusal of the said judgment, I find that the land acquired therein and the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in the present proceedings is part and parcel of the same property surveyed under no.1/10. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that though the land acquired in the present acquisition was subsequent to the said notification, the compensation in the present case has been awarded at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the property surveyed under no.1/10 and 164/5 are adjoining to one another. The Reference Court, in fact, while assessing the market value of 5 the acquired land has come to the conclusion that the lands in both the survey numbers are similar in nature and fixed the same compensation. The learned Government Advocate was unable to point out any infirmity in the said finding of the Reference Court. 8. Considering the said judgment passed in First Appeal No.100/4, I find that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court by the impugned judgment at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre for the land acquired cannot be said to be excessive or unjust. There is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court while fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.60/- per square metre. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants was unable to point out that there is any dissimilarity with the land acquired. As such, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and, consequently, the appeal stands dismissed with no orders as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-