1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006 Fr. Wellington Rodrigues (since deceased through legal representative) Honorato E. Rodrigues, r/o. Borim, Ponda, Goa. ....... Appellant. V/s 1. Deputy Collector (Rev) & Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji, Goa. 2. Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal Council, Ponda, Goa. ........ Respondents. Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date :- 16th August, 2010. ORAL J U D G M E N T : (Per A.S. OKA, J. ) We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The challenge in this first appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the learned District Judge by which a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been answered in the negative. The reference was made at the instance of the predecessor of the present appellant. 2. The acquisition relates to the land surveyed under survey No.168/1 (part) admeasuring 4033 sq. metres. A notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published in the Official Gazette on 1st April, 1992. By an award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered the market value at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. metre. The said marked value was not accepted and hence a reference was made, claiming market value at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre and the compensation on account of severance at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. metre. 3. The appellant relied upon Sale Deed dated 20th December, 1991 (Exhibit-31) and Sale Deed dated 31st August, 1999 (Exhibit-32) which, according to the appellant, were in respect of 3 comparable lands. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention to what is set out in the award under Section 11 of the said Act. He pointed out that even the award proceeds on the footing that the acquired land was situated in the heart of the city of Ponda. He pointed out that both the sale instances were in respect of comparable lands. He pointed out that though the sale deed dated 31st August, 1999 appears to be a post-notification sale, recitals in the sale deed show that the bargain was of the year 1996. Therefore, the market value reflected therein is of 1996. He, therefore, submits that there was no reason for the reference Court to discard the evidence in the form of both the sale deeds. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent (acquiring body) submitted that though the acquired land may be situated in the heart of the city of Ponda, as far as the sale deeds are concerned, there is no evidence adduced by the appellant to show that the lands subject-matter thereof were comparable to the acquired land. He, therefore, submitted that no fault can be found with the view taken by the reference Court. 4 5. Faced with the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that if this Court is of the view that there is no evidence of comparability, an opportunity may be granted to the appellant to adduce evidence as regards comparability. The said submission is opposed by the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The appellant has examined three witnesses, including an Architect and Registered Valuer. Though the Architect has opined that the market value of the acquired land on the relevant date was Rs.1,000/- per sq. metre, he has made no reference to the sale deeds at Exhibits 31 and 32. The sale deeds have been produced in the evidence of the constituted attorney of the original applicant, but there is no evidence adduced as regards comparability of the lands subject-matter of the sale deeds with the acquired land. Perusal of the award under Section 11 of the said Act shows that even the Land Acquisition Officer has noted that the acquired land is situated in the heart of the city of Ponda. Though an award under Section 11 is an offer, the State is certainly 5 bound by the statements made in the award. The appellant has adduced evidence in the form of sale deeds at Exhibit-31 and 32. But there is no evidence adduced to show that the acquired land was comparable to the sale deed lands. The appellant has lost land in the compulsory acquisition which he claims to be of substantial value. The reference has been rejected mainly on the ground that there is no evidence of comparability. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellant to adduce evidence as regards comparability of the land subject-matter of the sale deeds at Exhibits 31 and 32 with the acquired land. Therefore, we are inclined to remand the matter to the reference Court. 7. Hence, we pass the following order : (I) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 25th April, 2005 is quashed and set aside. Land Acquisition Case No. 155/1997 is restored to the file of the reference Court. (II) Parties are directed to appear before the reference Court on 27th September, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. (III) The reference Court will permit the appellant to lead further evidence on the issue of comparability of the land subject- matter of sale deeds at Exhibits 31 and 32 with the acquired land. The 6 reference Court will also permit the respondents to adduce evidence in rebuttal. (IV) After considering the evidence which is already on record and the evidence which may be adduced after remand, the reference Court shall decide the reference afresh, on its own merits. (V) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (VI) The reference Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before the end of April, 2011. (VII) The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs. A.S. OKA, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm.