1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO.11 OF 2005 1. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XIVI, Gogol, Margao, Goa. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, S.I.P., I.D., Complex, Gogol, Margao, Goa. ... Appellants versus 1. M/s. G. N. Agrawal Private Ltd., a Private Limited Company, having its Registered Office at Anand Bhuvan, First Floor, No House Number, Station Road, Margao, Goa. 2. M/s. Agrawal Minerals(Goa) Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company, having its Registered Office, first floor, Anand Bhuvan, No House Number, Station Road, Margao, Goa. ... Respondents Ms. S. Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondents. 2 CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Challenge in this appeal is to the award of the Reference Court dated 1-10-2004. 2. Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the Appellants and Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents. 3. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1881, and published on Gazette dated 13-5-1993, the Government acquired 1020 sq. meters of the Respondents land of survey No.154/1 of Curchorem Village in Quepem Taluka for the purpose of construction of a market complex, and by award dated 18-5-1995, the Respondents were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq. meter. 4. Dissatisfied with the said award, the Respondents got a reference made and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.800/- per sq. meter. The learned Reference Court by relying on a sale deed dated 6-2-1990 of the very same land of the Respondents, has awarded compensation to the Respondents 3 at the rate of Rs.266/- per sq. meter with consequential benefits and this appeal has been filed against the said enhancement. 5. The learned Reference Court relying on the said sale deed dated 6-2-1990 referred to two decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of Shakuntalabai(Smt) and others v. State of Maharashtra(1996(2) SCC 152) the Apex Court had stated that in a case where evidence of the value of the land is available on record it was necessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. In the case of Panna Lal Ghosh and others v. Land Acquisition Officer and others(2004 AIR SCW 66) the Apex Court had stated that the most reliable way to determine the market value was to rely on the instances of sale of portions of the same land as has been acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or after Section 4 notification. The learned Reference Court noted that the sale deed dated 6-2-1990-Exh.19 was a sale deed by which the Respondents had sold an area of 7251.25 sq. meters at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. meter and the acquired land was part of the same larger plot of survey No.152/1, and, therefore held that the sale deed dated 6-2-1990 was the best piece of evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land and based on the same and granting a yearly increase of 10% fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.266/- per sq. meter. 4 6. Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that part of the same property was acquired in the year 1987 and at that time compensation at the rate of Rs.85/- per sq. meter was awarded. However, it is seen that this submission was not made before the learned Reference Court nor any material was produced to support the same, and, therefore the same cannot be accepted now, for the first time in appeal. Ms. Linhares, further submits that in the sale deed dated 6-2-1990 it is mentioned that there was a garage, and, therefore it could not be said that the price of Rs.200/- per sq. meter reflected the price of land alone. Here again, there was no whisper made in the cross-examination of the Respondent's witness to suggest that the sale deed had also reflected the price of the garage. No such submission was also made before the learned Reference Court and considering the same, I am not inclined to allow the Appellants to make such a submission for the first time in appeal before this Court. 7. The sale deed dated 6-2-1990 was closest from time angle and was of the same land. Therefore, the learned Reference Court was right in deciding the market value based on sale deed dated 6-2-1990 of the very same land and by giving appreciation at the rate of 10%, considering that the sale had taken place three years prior to the date of notification. 5 8. Consequently, I find there is no merit in this appeal as well as in the Cross Objections filed. 9. The First Appeal along with the Cross Objections are therefore hereby dismissed. Appellants to pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the Respondents. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD