1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No. 79 of 2002 1. Deputy Collector & S.D.O.P. Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji. 2. Goa Housing Board having Office at Porvorim, Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Antonio Orlando Lobo, R/o Father Agnelo Road, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. Dr. Olavo Lobo, through his Attorney, Mr. Xamba Sinai Capdi, r/o La Campala Co-op. Housing Colony, Opp. College of Architecture, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. H.D. Naik, Advocate for the Appellants. None present for the Respondents. Coram: S. B. DESHMUKH & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date: 23 rd November, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (per S.B. Deshmukh, J): Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants. None present for the Respondents. 2 2. The Appellant No. 1 is the Land Acquisition Officer. The Appellant No. 2, Goa Housing Board is an acquiring body. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that there is no dispute regarding ownership of the property, nature of the property acquired, date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and its publication in the official gazette on 19-08-1982. The Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the said Act, after determination of the market value compensation was offered at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square metre for the acquired land. The Respondents, after passing of the award, by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, preferred application under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. The application filed by the Respondents (claimants) was made over to the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji and ultimately the learned Additional District Judge registered it as Land Acquisition Case No. 40/1992. The learned Additional District Judge, to whom the case was made over, heard the respective parties. Respective parties have adduced evidence in view of the issues framed by the 3 learned Additional District Judge (“Reference Court” for short). The claimants examined six witnesses, namely AW.1, A. Lobo, AW.2 Prazeres Gonsalves, AW.3 Rui Rebello Santana, AW.4 Sanjay Kamat, AW.5 Jose Fernandes and AW.6 Thomas Marais. On behalf of the Respondents (Appellants herein), 3 witnesses namely, RW.1 Pratap R. Neurenkar, RW.2 Prabhakar L. Palienkar and RW.3 Vishram V. Gaunkar were examined. The parties have placed on record documentary evidence. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to paras 6 and 7 of the judgment of the Reference Court. The Reference Court has considered the award, which is on record in respect of Land Acquisition Case No. 4/88 and the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 81/85 dated 08-06-1987 by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji. The land in that case was acquired for re-alignment of National Highway No. 17, somewhere in the year 1984 where the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed market value at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre. In a Land Acquisition Reference, compensation/market value was fixed by the learned Additional District Judge at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre. Said Order of the learned Additional District Judge 4 was passed of on 08-06-1987. The acquisition undisputedly, was done somewhere in the year 1984 and the market value of the acquired land therein was fixed relying upon an award passed earlier in Land Acquisition Case No. 19/80. The date of the said award in Land Acquisition Case No. is 13.02.1983. The location of the land acquired which is the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 19/80 seems to be near the Kadamba bus stand. The said acquisition was subject matter in the year 1977. The compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre. Award passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 19/80 was upon bye-passing award in Land Acquisition Case No. 4/88. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellants states that earlier appeals i.e First Appeal No. 95/2001 and First Appeal No. 101/2001 were filed before this Court by the claimants, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. In the substance, determination of the market value awarded by the learned Additional District Judge under Section 18 in these two appeals were challenged by both the parties i.e. Acquired Body as well as the claimants. Counsel for the parties on instructions 5 concede that this Court had heard the parties and considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties remanded these two appeals to the Reference Court. 6. Thus, order passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 95/2001 and First Appeal No. 101/2001 was passed on concessional statements made by Advocates for the parties on instructions. It was not on merits by the High Court. 7. In the case at hand it appears that the market value has not been properly awarded by the Reference Court. In view of the remand of the matter in First Appeal No. 95/2001 and First Appeal No. 101/2001, learned Counsel for Appellants seeks some relief in this case also. 8. We have perused the judgment of the Reference Court and the record available. We have also considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants and seen material placed on record in the present case. The Reference Court has, appreciated the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective. Reasons recorded by the trial court cannot be said to 6 be perverse, to overturn the judgment. 9. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Reference Court. Appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs. S. B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. Ev