1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2005 1. Sarita Vithal Lolienkar 2. Sanjiv Vithal Lolienkar 3. Prasad Vithal Lolienkar All r/o Maxem, Loliem, Canacona, Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa, KRCL Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P. O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa. 2. The Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Amey Guest House, Davorlim Road, P.O. Navelim, Salcete-Goa. ... Respondents Shri C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against Judgment/Award dated 7-2-2005 of the learned reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.227/1995, by which the reference for enhancement sought by the appellants/applicants for enhancement of compensation has been rejected. 3. The applicants' land admeasuring about 2660 sq. meters from survey No.6/7 of Loliem village was acquired by the Government for the construction of the new broad gauge line of the Konkan Railway, by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on Gazette dated 27-6-1991. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 31-3-1994 awarded to the applicants compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq. meter. The applicants were also awarded compensation of Rs.1,24,020/- for the trees. As against that, the applicants sought enhancement of the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq. meter, and in support of the reference examined two experts and relied upon four sale deeds and 3 three awards which have been tabulated by the learned reference Court in para 11 of the Judgment and which have also been discussed in the Judgment. 4. Admittedly, the applicants' acquired land had no building potential as it fell within 70 meters from river Galgiba where no construction was possible. The Respondents had obtained an admission in that regard both from the applicants as well as the applicants' expert Shri Vikas Dessai. Of the sale deeds produced by the applicants two were post notification sale deeds which have been rejected by the learned reference Court relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Karan Singh and others v. Union of India((1997) 8 SCC 186). Others were sale deeds which were executed prior to the CRZ notification coming into force on 27-6-1991. 5. The applicants had led no other evidence to enable the reference Court to assess the compensation payable except the said sale deeds/awards. The learned reference Court therefore came to the conclusion that there was ample evidence on record to show that the acquired land in the present case from survey No.6/7 had no potential for 4 development by way of construction as it was affected by Coastal Zone Regulation, and as regards the opinion given by the applicants' expert Shri Vikas Dessai that mud houses could be constructed, the learned reference Court rejected the same observing that there was no such provision made in the said CRZ notification dated 19-2-1991. The learned reference Court therefore concluded that the acquired land could not be valued on the basis of the sale deeds of other lands or awards which have been discussed by the learned reference Court in the impugned Judgment. Exhs.12 dated 25-5-1992 and 13 dated 6-11-1991 were post notification sale deeds and besides they have been held as not comparable to the acquired land. Exh.14 dated 11-9-1989 has been held to have been executed prior to the date of the said CRZ notification, wherein the purchaser had a house. Exh.15 dated 4-7-1988 has been referred to in paras 32 and 33. The awards Exhs.16 and 17 have been discussed in paras 34 and 35. 6. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants submits that the applicants were given only fruit value of the existing trees of Rs.1,24,020/-, but were not given any wood value. The applicants have not led any evidence on that aspect of the case. 5 7. The approach adopted by the learned reference Court in rejecting the reference cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this appeal and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD