1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. FIRST APPEAL NO. 290/2004. 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., Rawanfond, Margao, Goa. … Appellants. V/s Shree Damodar Devasthan, through their Attorney, Ramchandra Prabhu Dessai, R/o Borus, Loliem, Canacona, Goa. … Respondent. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. P. A. Kamat, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F. M. REIS , J. DATE : 22 nd October 2010 . 2 ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 8.4.2004 passed by the learned IIIrd Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao in LAC No. 442/1995. 2. The appellants by notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the said Act) dated 10.6.1991 published in the Official Gazette dated 27.6.1991, acquired land for the purpose of constructing the new Broad Gauge Line for Konkan Railway at Loliem/Poinginim village of Canacona taluka. Besides other lands, the portion of the property surveyed under No. 72/2 and 72/3 of Loliem village having an area of 4750 sq. metres was intended to be acquired belonging to the respondents. By award dated 31.3.1994, under Section 11 of the said Act the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. metre, besides a sum of Rs. 13,681.83 towards 39 trees which were existing in the acquired land. Being dissatisfied with the same, the respondent filed a reference before the District Court and claimed sum of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre for the land acquired. The Reference Court by judgment dated 8.10.2004 fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 28.50 per sq. metre. Being aggrieved 3 by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court was not justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 28.50 per sq. metre. He further pointed out that there is no evidence on record adduced by the respondent to substantiate his claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale deed produced by the respondent dated 11.9.1989 was not comparable to the acquired land as the said land was suitable for construction purpose which was not the case with regard to the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that this Court in First Appeal No. 63/2005 had fixed the market value of the land acquired therein at the rate of Rs. 21/- per sq. metre by judgment dated 14.10.2010 in respect of the land situated at Loliem surveyed under No. 73/2 and land surveyed under No. 70/1 of the same village. He further pointed out that the lands which were subject matter of the acquisition in the said appeals were in the same notification as the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in the present case. 4 4. Shri P. A. Kamat learned Counsel appearing for the respondent did not dispute the fact that the land which was the subject matter of the present acquisition was also the land which was in the same notification as the one which were the subject matter of First Appeal no. 63/2005 and 81/2005. He further pointed out that the Reference Court has rightly fixed the market value of the acquired land and no infirmity is committed in the impugned judgment. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 28.50 per sq. metre? 6. On perusal of the record, I find that the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 63/2005 dated 14.10.2010 is in respect of the property which was acquired for the same purpose 5 pursuant to the same notification, published in the Official Gazette dated 27.6.1991. Apart from that, even the LAO whilst giving an offer of compensation to the respondents had fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. metre in respect of both the lands which were subject matter of the said appeal as well as the present case. Hence, I find that the market value of the land in the present case is to be fixed on the basis of the price fixed in First Appeal No. 63/2005. There is no reason for this Court to give any other amount to the respondent herein. Hence, I find that for the reasons stated in the said judgment dated 14.10.2010, the market value of the acquired land is to be fixed at Rs. 21/- per sq. metre. Both the Counsel agree that the said amount is to be paid after deducting a sum of Rs. 4/- per sq. metre paid by the LAO to the respondent. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment dated 8.10.2004 is modified and the respondents will be entitled to excess compensation of Rs. 17/- per sq. metre for the land acquired with all the consequential statutory benefits in accordance with law. The appellants would be entitled to deduct the amount if any paid to the respondents in accordance with law. 6 8. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F. M. REIS, J. MF/-