1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2005 1. Dy. Collector (L.A.), Margao, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. VI, (R & B), PWD, Fatorda, Margao ...... Appellants Versus 1. Shri Anwar Mavany 2. Shri Yasin Tajdin Mavany Both represented by their Attorney Shri Sandesh K. Naik, r/o. Nanu House, V.V. Road, Margao-Goa. ..... Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. Coram:- S.B. DESHMUKH & F.M. REIS, JJ Date:- 25 th NOVEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT ( per S. B. DESHMUKH, J) We have heard the learned Government Advocate, Shri G. Shirodkar for the Appellants and learned Advocate, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar for the Respondent No. 2. 2. We have seen earlier orders passed in First Appeal Nos. 341 of 2005 and 37 of 2005 which is before this Court for final disposal. First 2 Appeal No. 341 of 2005 is filed by the Appellant/State authorities against two respondents, both have been served. Shri Usgaonkar is appearing for Respondent No. 2. None is present for the Respondent No.1. After giving the notice of final disposal, the matter was before this Court on 20th March, 2006. This Court admitted the said Appeal. This Court has also directed that this Appeal having the same notification is to be heard with the First Appeal No. 37 of 2005. However learned Counsel Mr. Usgaonkar points out that the subject matter of First Appeal No. 37 of 2005 has no concern with this Appeal. Therefore, First Appeal No. 37 of 2005 is to be detached from this Appeal. 3. The learned Counsel present before this Court for parties fairly concedes that F.A. No. 199 of 2006 was before this Court and this Court has passed an Order/Judgment on 23rd June, 2010. Copy of the Judgment is made available to us. It is marked as ''A'' for identification and taken on record. The Counsel appearing for the parties fairly concedes that the subject matter of First Appeal No. 199 of 2006, date of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as to the ''Said Act”) and date of the award under section 11 of the said Act is same in both these Appeals. 4. The factually land which is the subject matter of acquisition in both the appeals is one and the same, but the Survey numbers are different and therefore this appeal. Only difference is in relation to the date of acquisition of the notification. We have noticed from the record that there is no dispute between the parties that notification has been issued under section 4 of the said Act. However, there is small difference of six months in the 3 publication which is to be considered in First Appeal No. 199 of 2006. In First Appeal No. 199 of 2006, the date of the notification was 19th March, 1998 and in the present case the date of the notification is 17th September, 1998. 5. This Court in First Appeal No. 199 of 2006 has determined the market value of the acquired land at rate of Rs. 639/- per square metre. The material/sale instances which is the subject matter in First Appeal No. 199 of 2006 which was considered by this Court are also placed on record in this First Appeal. 6. Mr. S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Claimant points out Para 12 of the Judgment of learned reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 2002 subject matter of First Appeal No. 37 of 2005. His emphasize is on escalation of the price considered by the Reference Court mentioned in Para 12 of the Judgment. The learned Advocate submits that the 10% escalation on Rs. 747/- is to be considered while determining the market value and the claimants will be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 672/- per square metre. The learned Government Advocate for the Appellants is of different view. He has placed reliance on the reasons mentioned in First Appeal No. 199 of 2006. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion market price which we have determined in the First Appeal No. 199 of 2006 shall be market price in the present appeal for the reasons we have recorded in First Appeal No. 199 of 2006. Hence we pass the similar order which we 4 have passed in First Appeal No. 199 of 2006 and more specifically Para 12 of the said Judgment. i) The impugned judgment and award is modified. ii) We direct that the respondent shall be entitled to excess market value of the land at the rate of Rs.568/- per square metre. Rest of the operative part of the impugned judgment and award is maintained. iii) The Registrar will determine the amount payable to the respondents on the basis of the modified award. iv) The Registrar will permit the respondents to withdraw the said amount along with interest accrued thereon. v) Rest of the amount together with the interest shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants. vi) Appeal is partly allowed with above terms with no order as to cost. S. B. DESHMUKH, J F. M. REIS, J ars