1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.135 OF 2005 The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI (R&B), PWD, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. …. Appellants V/s 1. Padmanabhav Vencatexa Sinai Sancou, R/o. Mardicotto Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. (since deceased represented by his legal heirs) a. Smt. Geetabai Padmanabha Sinai Sancou, b. Shri Naracinva Ramankant Sinai Sancou and c. Shri Dattaray Ramakanth Sinai Sancou. 2. Ramakanth Vencatexa Sinai Sancou, R/o. Mardicotto Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. …. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal is filed by the Government (State of Goa) and is 2 directed against award dated 15/04/2004, by which compensation payable at the rate of `7/- per square metre has been enhanced to `29/- per square metre based on an award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 24/04/1989 – Exhibit 19, of the same property. 3. The Government by virtue of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on Gazette dated 7/03/1991 acquired 3475 square metres of land from Survey No.85/1 belonging to the respondents, for the purpose of construction and black topping of road from Mugali to Gali in village Nessai within the jurisdiction of St. Jose de Areal Panchayat in Salcete Taluka. The respondents/applicants were paid `7/- per square metre by way of compensation. 4. In their claim for enhancement, the applicants relied upon the said award – Exhibit 19 by which 1000 square metres were acquired by the Government of the same property. That award was dated 24/04/1989 and pertains to notification issued under Section 4(1) of the said Act published on Gazette dated 29/05/1986 by which compensation was paid to the applicants at the rate of `18/- per square metre. The learned Reference Court placed reliance on the case of Karan Singh and Others V/s. Union of India (AIR 3 1997 SC 389) to say that previous awards could be relied upon. Thereafter, on the basis of the said award, the learned Reference Court computed the compensation payable by giving appreciation at the rate of 10% on compounding basis. This the learned Reference Court did by placing reliance on the case of V.M. Salgaonkar & brothers V/s. Union of India (1995 (2) SCC 302) and enhanced the compensation payable to `29/- per square metre. 5. The method adopted by the learned Reference Court, in my view, cannot be faulted. I find there is no merit in this appeal and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-