1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.33 OF 2005 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.) Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI (R & B) P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s Cofre of Confraria of Satissimo Sacramento e Deus Espirito Santo of Holy Spirit Church, Old Market, Margao, Goa, through Shri Dr. Filipe Nery da Piedade Correia, President of Administrative Committee. …. Respondent Mr. S. Vahidulla, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. G. Teles, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri Vahidulla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Appellants were the respondents in Land Acquisition Case No.6/2001. This appeal has been filed against enhancement of compensation payable from `20/- per square metre to `30/- per square metre. 2 2. The respondent's land admeasuring 115 square metres from Survey No.265/6 and 175 square metres from Survey No.218/1 of Village Benaulim was acquired for the purpose of widening and black topping of the road from Colva to Varca junction. The notification under Section 4(1) was gazetted on Gazette dated 26/04/1993. The Land Acquisition Officer had paid the respondent, compensation at the rate of `30/- per square metre. First Appeal No.24/2004 (in the case of Dy. Collector (L.A.) & Anr. V/s. The Holy Trinity Chapel) decided by this Court on 27/08/2010 arose from Land Acquisition Case No.5/2001 wherein land was acquired by the same notification and in the same village and for the same purpose and compensation awarded at `30/- per square metre was maintained. 3. Similar lands situated in same village, acquired under the same notification need to be given the same compensation so as to avoid disparity in payment of compensation. The Apex Court has accepted its principle in various decisions and in the case of M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by LR's & Ors. (1994 SC 1160), the Apex Court has held that: “If 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of 3 land' is adopted for determining the market-value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds good for determination of the market-value of several acquired plots of land if the acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary Notification.” 4. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and since this Court has maintained compensation at `30/- per square metre in First Appeal No.24/2004 filed by the present appellants themselves, there is no other option bit to dismiss the appeal, maintaining the judgment of the Reference Court. 5. The appeal is dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-