- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2004. Shri Ramrao Venkatrao Rane, resident of Kerim, Sattari, Goa. .......... Appellant. Versus Shri Sanjay Rane, resident of Vithalpur, Sanquelim Goa. .......... Respondent. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Agni Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:-F. M. REIS, J. Date:-10th December, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 14.5.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case no. 136/1992. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Government acquired land bearing No.198(part) having an area of 4165 square metres situated at village Carapur of Bicholim Taluka for the extension of DWC of Right Bank Main Canal of Anjune Irrigation - 2 - Project vide notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) dated 9.5.1991. In view of the dispute between the appellant and the respondent with regards to compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the dispute was referred to the learned Reference Court under section 30 of the said Act. 3. By impugned Judgment and award dated 14.5.2004, the compensation was ordered to be paid to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. In First Appeal no. 182/2004 an application was filed by the appellant to adduce additional evidence which came to be allowed by order passed today. The dispute raised in the said appeal has been remanded to the Reference Court to decide the reference a fresh after giving both the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence. The basis of the plea of the appellant and the respondent in both the appeals for the compensation in respect of the land acquired is the same and the notification is also the same but however the survey numbers of the portions of the property are different. For the reasons - 3 - recorded in the said Judgment, I find that there is no reason to pass different decision in the above appeal. Matter deserve to be remanded for deciding the reference afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. 5. In view of the above, I pass the following:- O R D E R i. Appeal is partly allowed. ii. Impugned Judgment and award dated 14.5.2004 is quashed and set aside. LAC No. 136/1992 is restored to the file of the Reference Court. iii. Reference Court is directed to decide the reference a fresh after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. iv. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. v. Parties are directed to appear before the Principal District Judge, North Goa Panaji on 10.1.2011 at 10.00a.m and abide by its further directions. F. M. REIS, J. vn*