:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2004 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2004 FIRST APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2004 1. Deputy Collector ( L.A.) Margao Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI (R-S) P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Fernando Luis de Santos Fernandes, R/o House No. 1279, Majilwado, Benaulim, Salcete Goa. 2. Shri Filipe do Rosario Fernandes, ( Since decesed ) 2(a) Mrs. Carmela Fernandes, (wife) age 75 years, (b) Mr. Jao Vincent Fernandes ( son) age 46 years (c) Savio Fernandes, Married to Freeda Fernandes, (son ) age 46 years, (d) Mrs. Maria Joice Fernandes, Married to Angelica Gracias (Daughter), age 43 years, (e) Carmo De Jesus Fernandes, Married to Vita Pereira, (son), age 40 years, (f) Anastasio Fernandes, married to Lisa Paes (Son), age 38 years. ... Respondents :2: Ms. S. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Judas Chagas Silva, Advocate for the Respondent. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 230 OF 200 4 1. Deputy Collector (L.A.) Margao Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI (R-S) P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao Goa. .... Appellants V e r s u s Dr. Evans Chagas Silva, H.No.1334/B, Majilwado, Benaulim, Salcete Goa. .... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Judas Chagas Silva, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE: 1 st OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Both the above appeals were taken up for hearing together with the consent of both the learned Counsel as the lands which were subject matter of the acquisition were notified for acquisition by the same notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), bearing No. 22/180/90-RD dated 25th January, 1991, published in the Official Gazette dated 28th February, 1991. :3: 2. The facts in First Appeal No. 152 of 2004. By the aforesaid notification, a portion of the land belonging to the Respondents was to be acquired admeasuring an area of 100 square metres from the property surveyed under survey No. 268/8 of village Benaulim, for the purpose of construction and black topping of Tambdimati-Majiwado main Varca Margao road No. 4 and Pequeno Pulwado in Benaulim of Salcete Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation by an award dated 30th November, 1995 at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondents sought a reference for enhancement of the compensation under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed an amount of Rs.350/- per square metre. By the judgment and award dated 30th September, 2003, the Reference Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. 3. The facts in First Appeal No. 230 of 2004. By the aforesaid notification under Section 4 of the said Act, an area of 125 square metres belonging to the Respondent from the property surveyed under survey No.1/9 of village Benaulim was sought to be acquired for the same purpose namely for the construction of a road and black topping of Tambdimati- Mazilwado road. By an award dated 30th November, 1995 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed an amount of Rs.300/- per square metre. :4: 4. By judgment and award dated 29th November, 2003, the Reference Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellants preferred the present appeals. 5. Submission and consideration of both Appeals. Ms. S. Mordekar and Ms. S. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocates appearing for the Appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court misdirected itself in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. The learned Additional Government Advocates further submitted that the Reference Court has failed to consider that the Respondents in both the appeals have failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing in First Appeal No. 152 of 2004 took me through the evidence on record and submitted that the sale deed at Exhibit 13 produced by the Respondents is not at all comparable with the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land which was the subject matter of the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 133/1993 was not at all comparable with the acquired land. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing in First Appeal No. 230 of 2004 submitted that the sale deed at Exhibit 12 produced by the Respondent is not at all comparable with the acquired land as admittedly the sale deed plot therein was a developed plot and the land acquired was undeveloped land. The learned Counsel further :5: submitted that the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in Land Acquisition Case No. 133/1993 relied upon by the Reference Court is not at all comparable with the land acquired. The learned Counsel as such submitted that both the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. J. Silva, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in both the appeals has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in Land Acquisition Case No. 133/1993 was also acquired for the purpose of construction of a road and the said road was also passing Mazilwado through which the road now has been constructed. The learned Counsel further submitted that the subject matter of the said land is in the vicinity of the acquired lands and the same are comparable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the lands which were the subject matter of both the above appeals are in the vicinity of the land which was the subject matter of the First Appeal No. 100/2004 which has been disposed of by this Court by a judgment dated 26th August, 2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellants came to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise in the present appeal : POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre ? :6: 8. There is no dispute that the lands which were the subject matter of both the above appeals and the land which were the subject matter of First Appeal No. 100/2004 were notified by the same notification dated 25th January, 1991 for the same purpose. By a judgment dated 26th August, 2010 this Court has confirmed the compensation fixed in the said proceedings at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. The impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 133/1993 was also considered for the purpose of determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre in respect of the land which were the subject matter of First Appeal No. 100/2004. The evidence produced by the Respondents suggest that the land which was acquired in the above appeals were in the vicinity of the land which was acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 133/1993. There is no infirmity disclosed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants in the findings of the Reference Court that the said lands are comparable. There is no reason for this Court to award any different compensation to the lands in the above appeals than the one which was fixed in First Appeal No. 100 of 2004. For the reasons stated in the said judgment, I find that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.65/- per square metre. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in both the above appeals and as such both the appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. F. M. REIS, J at*