1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.15 OF 2003. 1) Special Land Acquisition Officer (N), T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada,Mapusa, Bardez-Goa. 2) Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, Irrigation Department, Now under G.T.I.D.C., W.D. VIII, T.I.P. Complex, P.O. Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez – Goa. .... Appellants V e r s u s Mr. Vithal R.P. Mambre, Mahambrawadi, Nanoda, Post Assonora-Goa. ..... Respondent. Ms. Susan Linhares, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Respondent absent though served. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Neither the Respondent nor any advocate on his behalf is present. 2 2. By this appeal the appellants have taken exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24th September, 2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case no.79 of 1993, partly allowing the reference sought by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein referred as “the Act” for short). 3. By Notification dated 4.11.1991 issued under Section 4 of the said Act, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for the purposes of construction of Sanquelim Branch Canal of Left Bank Main Canal of Tillari Irrigation Project. An area admeasuring 9950 sq. metres bearing survey no.471 (part) of the respondent was part of the acquired land. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per square metre before the Land Acquisition Officer and also claimed compensation towards trees and compound wall. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 8.10.1992 and awarded Rs.8/- per sq.metre in respect of the plot of the respondent. Compensation was also awarded towards trees and compound wall. 4. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.80/- per 3 sq.metre. The respondent also claimed that the area acquired was 10,000 sq.metres. The respondent claimed compensation of Rs. 1,34,882/- towards trees and compound wall. 5. In Land Acquisition Case No.79 of 1993 the respondent examined his Attorney, Digambar Mhambre, son of the respondent (A.W.1), Narayan Parsekar (A.W.2), Sambaji Pednekar (A.W.3) and Prabhakar Navelkar (A.W.4), the Valuer of the agricultural properties. The appellants examined Ashok Durgannavar, Assistant Engineer attached to Irrigation Department. The appellants relied upon three Sale Deeds executed in the year 1988 and 1989 and also the report prepared by the Valuer Mr. Navelkar. The Reference Court upon appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.metre and rejected the reference in so far as the claim for trees and compound wall is concerned. The Reference Court also held that the respondent had not proved that the area acquired was 10,000 sq.metres. 6. Mr. Digambar Mhambre, AW-1 produced the Sale deed dated 10/8/1989 (AW.1/B) and Sale Deed dated 27.11.1989 (AW.1/C) and Sale Deed dated 25.5.1988 (AW.1/D). In terms of Sale Deeds AW.1/B and AW1/D, plots admeasuring 300 sq.metres 4 were sold at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.metre in the same village and by Sale Deed dated 27.11.1989, plot admeasuring 300 sq.metres in the same village was sold at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court, placing reliance upon the Sale Deed dated 25.5.1988 and considering the yearly increase in price and making deductions thereafter arrived at the figure of Rs.25/- per sq.metre in respect of the acquired land. 7. By a separate judgment passed in First Appeal No.12 of 2003 preferred by the same appellants against the respondent herein, in respect of an area admeasuring 9950 sq.metres bearing survey no.471 (Part), after considering the evidence lead by the parties, I have held that the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq.metre is just and fair and cannot be termed as excessive. Since the said judgment is delivered in respect of the property bearing the same survey number and of similar nature, for the very same reasons, I hold that the compensation of Rs.25/- per sq.metre is just and proper and therefore no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and order. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present 5 appeal and hence the appeal is dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear the costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-