- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NOS. 95/2001 and 101/2001. FIRST APPEAL NO. 95/2001. 1 Shri Luis Lobo 2 Shri Antonio Lobo 3 Shri Fernando Lobo 4 Shri Mario Lobo, All resident of Feira Alto, Mpausa Bardez Goa. ....... Appellants. Versus 1 State of Goa, through the Deputy Collector and S.D.O. North Sub Division, Panaji, Goa. 2 Goa Housing Board, with Office at Junta House, Second Floor, Panaji Goa. ........ Respondents. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate with Mr. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent no. 2. WITH - 2 - FIRST APPEAL NO. 101/2001. 1 Deputy Collector & S.D.O.P Panaji. 2 Goa Housing Board ........ Appellants. Versus 1 Shri Luis Lobo 2 Shri Antonio Lobo 3 Shri Fernando Lobo 4 Shri Mario Lobo, All resident of Feira Alto, Mpausa Bardez Goa. ....... Respondents. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate with Mr. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:-S. B. DESHMUKH & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 16 th November, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. B. Deshmukh, J) We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Counsel appearing for the parties point out that these appeals are arising out of impugned common judgment delivered by the Reference Court. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Case no.4/1988, has - 3 - been decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji by judgment and order delivered on 30.8.2000. Reference filed by the original claimant has been partly allowed. Judgment has been challenged by both, the original claimant and the State Government. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. In these two appeals we have noticed that there is no dispute among the parties regarding acquisition of the property, its description, extend and quality of the land. With the assistance of the counsel appearing for the parties, we have seen the judgment of the Reference Court. Counsel appearing for the parties have stated that Reference Court has committed an error while arriving at the conclusion for determining the market value of the land acquired for the public purpose. Counsel appearing for the parties however agree, that these appeals could be partly allowed by remanding the proceeding to the trial Court for disposal of the proceedings/LAC afresh. Mr. Rivankar learned counsel for the claimant submitted that on remand recording for adducing fresh evidence by the parties shall not be permitted. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate fairly concedes this submission. In our opinion, both these appeals can be partly allowed by remitting the case back to the learned Reference Court for disposal, according to law, after hearing the parties, however on the basis of the material which was already placed on record earlier. 4. Impugned Judgment in these appeals are quashed and set aside - 4 - As it is a common judgment, appeals remanded back to the learned Reference Court for disposal of the reference a fresh, however on the basis of the material which was already placed on record by the parties. The disposal of the case after remand shall be expeditiously. Counsel appearing for the parties on instructions makes a statement that parties shall appear for expeditious disposal of the case. 5. Parties are directed to appear before learned Reference Court on 14.12.2010 at 10.00a.m. S. B. DESHMUKH, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn*