:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2002 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2002 FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2002 1. Shrimati Shripad Prabhu Dindibagkar, 2. Shri Jaywant S. P. Dindibagkar, 3. Shri Raghuraj S. P. Dindibagkar, All residents of Dindibag, Talton, Poiguinim, Canacona, Goa. …. Appellants V e r s u s 1. Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa Sub-Division, Quepem Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XXV (N.H.) P.W.D., Borda, Margao Goa. …. Respondents. Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2002 1. Smt. Radhabai Pandurang Acharya ( since deceased ) represented by LR's 1(a) Mrs. Bhanumati Kashinath Phaldessai. R/o Veli Wado, Poinguinim, Canacona Goa. :2: 1(b) Mrs. Ratnabaai Vasudev Prabhu Gaonkar, of major age, resident of Ajas, Loliem, Canacona Goa. 1(c) Mrs. Bharti Vasudev Bhat Acharya, of major age, resident of Laxmi Temple, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. 1(d)Mrs. Premabhai Ganapati Kamat, of major age, resident of Goregao, Mumbai. 1(e) Smt. Srimati Sripad Prabhu Dindibgkar, widow 1(f) Shri Jaiwant Sripad Prabhu Dindibkar, son 1(g) Shri Raghuvir Sripad Prabhu Dindibkar, son, 1(h) Miss Vinuta Sripad Prabhu Dindibkar, daughter, 1(i) Smt. Vinaya Avinash Kamat, daughter and her husband, 1(j) Shri Avinash Kamat, All residents of Dindibag, Talton, Poiguinim, Canacona, Goa. … Appellants V e r s u s 1. Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa Sub-Division, Quepem Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XXV (N.H.) P.W.D. Borda, Margao Goa. … Respondents :3: Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J DATE : 29 th JULY, 2011 . COMMON JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the aggrieved land owners against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 19/1995 and 20/1995 dated 04.07.2001. In brief, the appellants sought an enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer. They sought enhancement, inter- alia, on the basis of what according to them are comparable sale instances. For this purpose, the appellants examined purchaser Shri Pralhad Naik as witness, who has also produced the sale deed of the land. 2. However, the learned Additional District Judge has made the following observations while rejecting the claim for enhancement. According to the learned Additional District Judge, vide para 8, the testimony of the witnesses does not indicate that the acquired land had building potentiality. :4: Further, the learned Additional District Judge found that the witnesses had given different estimates about the distance of the acquired land from the land under sale instance. According to one witness Jaiwant Prabhu (AW1), it was 200 metres away from the acquired land. According to another witness Vikas Dessai (AW2), it was 100 to 180 metres away from the acquired land, whereas according to Pralhad Naik (AW3), it was 25 to 30 metres. Noticing that there was no consistency in the evidence with regard to the distance of the property, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to observe that the evidence does not indicate that the nature of the acquired land was similar to the land under sale deed. Shri Usgoankar, learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that the nature of the acquired land was not similar to that of the land under sale deed. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the nature of the acquired land was similar to that of the land under sale deed is incorrect since the purchaser of the land Shri Pralhad Naik has, after describing and comparing with the nature of the land which he has purchased with the acquired land, made a categorical statement that the nature of his property is similar to that of the acquired land. As regards the question of distance of the :5: acquired land from the land under the sale instance, if the learned Additional District Judge found that it was not possible to correctly assess what the actual distance was, it was a fit case where the learned Additional District Judge could have exercised powers conferred on him under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. for making local investigation. This distance is something which is an objective fact which can be easily verified by a Commissioner and in cases where there are varying versions about the distance and where the distance is relevant, such as in the present case, it would have been appropriate for the Court to appoint a Commissioner. It might be noted that though there is observation that the land does not have building potential, there is no finding by the learned Additional District Judge, whether there was any embargo on development and construction. Having regard to the fact that there is evidence to indicate that there were 25 to 30 houses which are very near the land it is difficult to conclude that the land had no building potentiality. 3. In view of the above, I am of the view that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge for fresh :6: decision, in accordance with law, and after obtaining a report from the Commissioner regarding the distance of the sale instance from the acquired land. The appeals are disposed of in above terms. 4. The learned Additional District Judge shall dispose of the acquisition proceedings within a period not more than one year from the date the parties appear before the Reference Court. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 29th August, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. S. A. BOBDE,J at*