1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.240 OF 2006 1. The Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Goa Industrial Development Corporation, having office at Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa. 2. The Deputy Collector & SDO, Quepem & LAO. …. Appellants V/s 1. Shri Manuel Salvador D'Sa (since deceased) represented by his legal heir: 1(a) Smt. Piedade Lucas, wife of late Manuel D'Sa, resident of Raidor, Quelossim, Mormugao Taluka. …. Respondent Shri M.S. Sonak and Shri P. Bandodkar, Advocates for the Appellants. Shri T. Pereira, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 29th JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 15/04/2006, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.87/2000. 2 2. Pursuant to a notification dated 13/08/1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) land belonging to the respondent was acquired admeasuring an area of 9450 square metres from the property surveyed under no.97/12 of village of Quelossim, Mormugao Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer while fixing the compensation for the land acquired had offered compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre in respect of land located in Belt No.II and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per square metre in respect of land in Belt No.III, as the compensation was fixed by the belting method. The respondent being dissatisfied with the said amount sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.150/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 15/04/2006, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.18/- per squre metre, besides statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has 3 assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that there was no material on record adduced by the respondent to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record and pointed out that there is no comparable sale instance produced by the respondent to establish her contention that she is entitled for any enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for any enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Sale Deed at Exhibit 22 produced by the respondent was in respect of an area of only 125 square metres which cannot be considered to be comparable sale instance, considering the land acquired was more than 9400 square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the findings of the Reference Court that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is meager is misplaced and deserves to be set aside. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the impugned judgment, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4 respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has further submitted that this Court while disposing of First Appeal No.70/2006 by judgment dated 8/04/2011 has upheld the compensation fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre in respect of the land acquired pursuant to the same notification. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering the said judgment passed by this Court, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has found that AW1 had not whispered anything with regard to the comparability of the land acquired with the Sale Instance produced by the respondent in respect of the Sale Instances at Exhibits 21 and 22 and awards mentioned therein. The Reference Court has 5 also found that there is no evidence to establish that the expert examined by the respondent has inspected the acquired land on 12/01/1988 and, as such, the evidence could not be relied upon. The learned Judge has also found that the plot at Exhibit 22 is a small plot whereas the acquired land was admeasuring more than 9,000 square metres. The learned Judge has also found that the comparability between the two properties is not established. The learned Judge has also considered the evidence adduced by the appellants of one Parmanand Gaonkar as RW1 and found that the respondent has produced in his cross-examination an award passed in Land Acquisition Case No.41/2000 in respect of the land acquired pursuant to the same notification wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre. The said award is at Exhibit 34. The learned Judge has also considered that the distance between the acquired land in the present case and the land acquired by Exhibit 34 is about 400 metres and that both the properties are in the proximity to one another. The learned Judge has also found that the areas acquired in both the proceedings are similar considering that in both acquisition proceedings more than 9,000 square metres were acquired. Accordingly, the compensation was fixed at the rate of 6 Rs.18/- per square metre. 7. The judgment passed in Land Acquisition Case No.41/2000 dated 7/10/2005 was the subject matter of the First Appeal No.70/2006 which came to be disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 8/04/2011. While disposing of the said First Appeal no.70/2006 this Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the findings of the Reference Court whereby the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre. 8. Considering the findings of the Reference Court to the effect that the land acquired in the present proceedings and the land which was subject matter of the said First Appeal are similar in nature and are in proximity of one another which have not been disputed by the appellants, I find no reason to award any different compensation for the land acquired. The learned Counsel for the appellants was unable to point out any infirmity in the said findings of the Reference Court. For the reasons stated in the said judgment passed on 8/04/2011 in First Appeal No.70/2006, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The point for 7 determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the above appeal and, as such, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-