1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 69/2003 1) Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 2) Executive Engineer, Works Division VIII, G.T.I.D.C., T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. ………. Appellants. Versus 1) Shri Arjun Babaji Raut (since deceased) through LR’s. and his wife; 2) Smt. Subhadra Arjun Rau, Both r/o. Madlo wado, Salem, (PO) Assonora, deceased by her LRs. Respondents No.1(a),1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(f), 1(g)(A) and 1(g)B. 1a) Shri Shambha Arjun Raut (son) aged about 43 years. 1b) Smt. Sujata Shambha Raut (Daughter-in-law), aged about 38 years, 1c) Shri Prakash Arjun Raut (son) Aged about 38 years, 1d) Smt. Prashila Prakash Raut (Daughter in law) aged about 33 years. 1e) Shri Anant Arjun Raut (son) (deceased) is represented by respondents No.1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(f), 1(g)A and 1(g)B as his legal representatives. 2 1f) Smt. Namita Namdev Shetye (daughter) aged about 38 years, 1g) Shri Namdev Ladu Shetye (son in law) Aged about 43 years (expired) 1g(A) Ladu Namdev Shetye aged about 9 years, 1g(B) Satui Namdev Shetye, Aged about 10 years, Both residing at Vazari, Gaothanwada, Pernem, Goa. ……. Respondents. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. S. Sonak and Mr. P. S. Rao, Advocates for the respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d), and 1(f). CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per. SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In view of the Judgment of this Court passed in First Appeals Nos.13/03, 14/03 and 16/03, there is no merit in the present appeal. We may notice that in those appeals, the reference Court had granted Rs.25/- per sq. metres, which has been upheld by this Court. However, the reference Court has granted compensation of Rs. 20/- per sq. metre in the present case and the 3 claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection against the Judgment dated 7.11.2002. It may also be noticed that the two sale instances which were produced and proved in those cases, have not been produced in the present appeal, which is another reason for us not to interfere in appeal. The appeal stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE. N.A. BRITTO SSM.