1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No. 128 of 2003 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.I.P) I.D. Complex, Gogal, Margao, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer Works Division VI P.W.D., Fatorda, Margao. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Deepak Alve H. No. 201, Comba, Margao. 2. Damodar Alve, H. No. 201, Comba, Margao. [since deceased through legal heirs] 2(a) Mahananda D. Alve Widow of late Damodar Alve 2(b) Dhinar D. Alve Son of late Damodar Alve 2(c) Anjuna Dhinar Alve Wife of Dhinar Alve 2(d) Darshan D. Alve son of late Damodar Alve 2 2(e) Meena Darshal Alve wife of Darshal Alve All above residents of “Hira Bungalow”, Comba, Margao – Goa 403 601. 2(f) Daliay Ajit Verenkar Daughter of late Damodar Alve 2(g) Ajit Ramkrishna Verekar Husband of Daliya Verekar 2(f) and 2(g) residents of “State Bank of India Colony” Near Old Survey Office, Borda, Margao – Goa. ... Respondents Mr. A. Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1, 2(a) to 2(g). Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 26 th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for respondents nos. 1, 2(a) to 2(g). 3 2. By this appeal, the appellants challenge judgment and award dated 18-12-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition case no. 33/1993 partly allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 'The Act' for short.) 3. Vide notification dated 18-01-1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for construction of road from Mungul-Calata via Seraulim. An area admeasuring 250 square metres bearing survey no. 16/1 of Seraulim village belonging to the respondents, was part of the acquired land. 4. The respondents claimed Rs. 60/- per square metre whereas the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 30/- per square metre by award dated 4 13-05-1992. The respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 60/- per square metre. 5. In the land acquisition case no. 33/1993 before the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, the respondent examined three witnesses, namely Deepak Alve (Exhibit-A.W.1), Vikas Dessai (Exhibit-A.W.2) and Basco Cotta (Exhibit-A.W.3) and placed reliance upon two sale deeds, that is sale deed dated 11-05-1989 (Exhibit- AW1/A) and sale deed dated 25-09-1989 (Exhibit- AW1/B). The respondent also placed reliance on valuation report dated 16-09-1995 (Exhibit-AW1/C) and deed of rectification cum sale dated 09-04-1990 (Exhibit- AW1/D). The Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 11-05-1989 by which an area of 4000 square metres with small structure was sold for Rs. 75/- per square metre and fixed the market rate at the rate of Rs. 5 60/- per square metre. 6. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2(a) to 2(g) submitted that this Court has upheld the award dated 16-09-2010 in First Appeal no. 125/2003 in which, under the same notification the land admeasuring 300 sqaure metres bearing survey no. 25/2 of village Seraulim belonging to the respondents in the said appeal was acquired. By said judgment and order, the Reference Court, fixed the market rate at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metre. The market rate has been maintained after placing reliance upon the very same sale deed dated 11-05-1989. 7. Mr. Pangam, further submitted that the acquired land in First Appeal No. 125/2003 was situated in close proximity of the land of the respondent and hence the respondent are entitled to the same compensation. 6 8. Mr. Kakodkar, fairly submits that the land involved in First Appeal No. 125/2003 was similar and situated in close proximity but this Court in judgment dated 16-09-2010 did not take into consideration the plot which was sold by sale deed dated 07-05-1989 in which there were mango trees. According to Mr. Kakodkar this would have direct effect on the fixation of the market rate of the acquired land and therefore the judgment in case of First Appeal No. 125/2003 would not advance the case of the respondent. 10. Upon perusal of record and after hearing the rival submission, I am of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment and award. The Reference Court has placed reliance upon sale deed dated 11-05-1989 for fixing the market rate of the acquired land in First Appeal No. 125/2003. I do not find that any error has been committed by the reference Court 7 in placing reliance upon sale deed dated 11-05-1989 and fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metre in the said appeal. 11. I am of the considered opinion that the existence of few mango trees would not make much difference for fixing the market rate of the acquired land. 12. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ev