1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2002 1 State of Goa, through the Dy. Collector,(SDO) Sub-Division, Margao Goa. 2 The Executive Engineer, W.D. XIV, P.W.D. Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …....... Appellants. Versus The Communidade of Nagoa, represented by its Procurador, Shri Antonio Pereira, r/o. Nagoa, Verna, Salcette, Goa. …....... Respondent. Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the appellants. Adv. S. N. Sapeco, not present. CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 15 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants. None appears on behalf of the respondent though served. 2 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 29th June, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 13/1995 by which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) has been partly allowed. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the official gazette dated 11th October, 1989, the Government of Goa acquired the lands of several persons for public purpose i.e. rehabilitation of people affected by Verna Bye-pass. An area admeasuring 75 square metres bearing survey no. 21/1 and an area admeasuring 60 square metres bearing survey no. 48/4part situated in village Nagoa, belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed Rs. 120/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 21st April, 1993 and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per square metre. 4. Dissatisified with the award, the respondent sought 3 reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs. 120/-per square metre. 5. In the Land Acquisition Case no.13/1995, the respondent herein who was the applicant before the Reference Court led evidence of two witnesses namely AW1 Anton Pereira, who produced award in Land Acquisition Case No. 23/1987(AW1/ A), award dated 3rd May, 1991 in Land Acquisition Case No.269/1988(AW/B), sale deed dated 24th April, 1987 (AW1/C). Respondent also examined AW2 Gavial Pereira, who was the vendor in the sale deed dated 24th April, 1987. Appellants herein did not examine any witness. 6. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 23/1987(Exh. AW1/A) in which the land acquired was situated on the other side and was similar to the acquired land and considering that the compensation was fixed at Rs. 40/- per square metre in the said case, fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.56/- per square metre by giving yearly increase of 10% from 1985 to 1989. 4 7. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Reference Court the appellants have filed the present appeal. 8. Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance upon the award dated 5th January, 1994 passed in the Land Acquisition Case No.23/1987(Exh. AW1/A) since no evidence was led by the respondent that the land in the said reference was comparable to the acquired land. Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate further submitted that the land involved in the land Acquisition Case No. 23/1987 was admeasuring 25000 square metres whereas the acquired land was admeasuring 135 square metres and therefore impugned award cannot be sustained in law. Mr. Salkar fairly submitted that the award dated 5th January, 1994 (AW1/A) has not been challenged by the respondent herein. The Advocate for the respondent chosen not to appear. 9. In view of the submissions made by Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate, the following point arises for 5 determination- Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in respect of the acquired land is excessive? If so, to what compensation the respondent is entitled? 10. Perusal of the impugned award discloses that the Reference Court has chosen to rely upon the award dated 5th January,1994 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 23/1987 which was in respect of the land situated just on the other side of the road and the said land and the acquired land was similar in nature. This being the position, I find that the Reference Court has not committed any illegality in placing reliance upon the said award. In so far as the submission made by Mr. Salkar that the area acquired in Exh. AW1/A was 25000 square metres which could not be comparable to the acquired land which was hardly 135 square metres is concerned, I do not find any merit therein, since the issue involved, in my opinion, is squarely covered against the appellants by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Goa and another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009) 10 SCC 686 Therefore, I also do not find merit in the second 6 submission made by Mr. Salkar. 11. In my considered opinion, the Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the respondent herein and has arrived at correct market value of the acquired land. Therefore no fault can be found with the Reference Court in placing reliance on the said award. 12. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. Hence, Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn*