... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO.103 OF 2004 1. Dy. Collector (L.A.) Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, WD VI (R & B), PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. ... Appellants v e r s u s 1. Ramakant R. Painguinkar, Block No.2/1, Bldg. No.2, Shri Damodar Co-op. Housing Soceity, Aquem-Alto, Margao, Goa. (Deceased) 1a. Smt. Kamalini R. Painguinkar widow of deceased, 65 years of age, 1b. Shri Rasik R. Painguinkar, son of the deceased, 44 years of age, 1c. Smt. Tanuja R. Painguinkar, daughter-in-law of the deceased, 35 years of age, ... 2 ... 1d. Smt. Sandhya N. Katkar, daughter of the deceased, 47 years of age, 1e. Shri Navinchandra Katkar, son-in-law of the deceased, 1f. Shri Raju R. Painguinkar, son of the deceased, 48 years of age, 1g. Smt. Jyoti R. Painguinkar, daughter-in-law of the deceased. ... Respondents Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATED: 13th November, 2008. ... 3 ... JUDGMENT: By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to award dated 01.10.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.2/2001 partly allowing the reference sought by the original respondent/ Ramakant Painguinkar. The respondents are the legal representatives of deceased Ramakant. 2. Vide Notification dated 06.01.1992, the Government of Goa acquired lands belonging to different persons for public purpose namely widening and black topping of road from Colva to Varca junction. Land admeasuring 325 sq.mtr. from survey no.219/2 and 300 sq.mtr. from survey no.217/18 of village Benaulim belonging to the respondents was part of the acquired land. The Land ... 4 ... Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. The applicant claimed Rs.800/- per sq.mtr. and sought reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (The Act for short). The respondent also claimed that in the acquired portion of the land, there were 26 coconut trees, 6 mango trees, one Gulmohar tree and one shiras tree and claimed compensation for the said trees. Before the Reference Court, the respondents restricted the claim to Rs.400/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the acquired land. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.2/2001, the respondent examined himself as Aw.1 and Shri Vikas Dessai, valuer, as Aw.2. No evidence was led on behalf of the appellants. The Reference Court rejected the claim in respect of the trees on the ground that no evidence was led by the respondents. ... 5 ... In respect of the land, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.30/- per sq.mtr. on the basis of the award dated 08.06.1998 in Land Acquisition Case No.133/1993. Notification in respect of the land involved in the said award was published in the Official Gazette dated 30.08.1990 by which the Government had acquired a portion of the land from survey no.312/1 and 312/2 for construction of a road in Benaulim village. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.23/- per sq.mtr. in respect of land under survey no.312/1 and Rs.12/- per sq.mtr. in respect of land under survey No.312/2. The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation in respect of both the survey numbers to Rs.60/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the evidence led by the original respondent to the effect that his land was closer to Margao as compared to the land in Land Acquisition ... 6 ... Case No.133/1993 and that the nature of the acquired land was similar to that of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No.133/1993. The Reference Court further placed reliance upon the evidence of the expert who stated that the acquired land was not fit for construction since it was forming a part of the set back area and consequently deducted 50% and arrived at the market rate of Rs.30/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court rejected the claim of the respondent in respect of the trees on the ground that no evidence was led regarding the existence of the trees. 4. Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court cannot be justified since there was absolutely no evidence on record to compare the acquired land with the land in Land ... 7 ... Acquisition Case No.133/1993. She further submitted that since the acquired land had no building potential, the Reference Court ought to have rejected the reference. 5. Per contra, Mr. Lotlikar submitted that factually the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on the lower side but in the absence of any appeal or cross objection, the respondents are not in a position to claim a higher compensation in the appeal preferred by the appellants. He further submitted that having regard to the findings given by the Reference Court, no interference is called for by this Court. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions, the following point arises for my consideration: ... 8 ... Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the acquired land is excessive ? 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 8. As stated above, the Reference Court has placed reliance upon the award dated 08.06.1998 in Land Acquisition Case No.133/1993 in which land from the same village was acquired by Notification dated 30.08.1990. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the evidence on record that the acquired land was closer to Margao city as compared to the land in Land Acquisition Case No.133/1993 and further that ... 9 ... the nature of the acquired land was similar to that of the previously acquired land. Based on these findings, the Reference Court fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.mtr. after deducting 50% on the ground that the acquired land had no building potential. In my considered opinion, the approach of the Reference Court cannot be said to be contrary to the settled principles governing determination of compensation in land acquisition cases. The Reference Court after taking award dated 08.06.1998 as comparable award and after making appropriate deduction, fixed the market of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per sq.mtr. The exercise undergone by the Reference Court cannot be faulted. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submission of Ms. Linhares that the Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation. ... 10 ... 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.