ORDER

1. This appeal is againsl the judgment of the High Court dated 7-5-1997. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

Section 4 notification was issued on 11-11-1977 for the purposes of acquiring 6640 sq metres land in Panaji. The land was being acquired for the purpose of establishing a museum. It is an admitted position that out of 6640 sq metres land 1125 sq metres land were paddy land, 2240 sq metres were salt pans and 3320 sq metres were a nallah, An award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21-3-1978. He fixed a price atRs 11 per sq metre for paddy land, Rs 10 per sq metre for salt pan and Rs 6 per sq metre for nallah. The Land Acquisition Officer also apportioned the compensation on the basis that 1/3 of the compensation, for paddy land, was to be given to the appellants (herein) and the rest was to be given to the tenant; for the salt pan 4/5 to the appellants and 1/5 to the tenant and for the nallah the entire compensation was given to the appellants.

3. The appellants filed a reference which was disposed of by a judgment dated 27-2-1990. Before the Reference Court the appellants led the evidence of two witnesses AWl and A W 2. AW l was the power-of-attorney holder of the appellants. AW 2 was a Civil Engineer who gave evidence of valuation of the acquired land and proved a certificate dated 5-2-1963 which showed that the acquired land was within commercial zone. The appellants also relied upon other awards passed in respect of other lands which had been acquired.One of the awards, in LA Case NO.2 of 1979 was marked as "Ext. A-3" by consent of the parties.

4. The Reference Court considered the entire evidence and noted that it a was proved that there was development all around the acquired land. The Reference Court took into account the other award which was in respect of acquisition of the land of the appellants itself for the Tourism Department. This land was situated just 200 metres from this land. On the basis of evidence before it, the Reference Court concluded that the figures given by AW 2 were reliable figures. The Reference Court accepted those figures and b fixed price at Rs 80 per sq metre for paddy land, Rs 60 per sq metre for the salt pan and Rs 20 per sq metre for the nallah. The Reference Court apportioned compensation 50:50 between the appellants and the tenant in respect of paddy field. The Reference Court awarded solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Sections 28 and 23(1-A).

5, The respondents filed an appeal before the High Court. The High C Court has, by the impugned judgment, allowed this appeal. The High Court has held that the paddy field was subject to tenancy rights. The High Court has held that unless this land was made suitable by necessary filling of mud and other necessary development, it could not be presumed that the land would be suitable for construction activity. The High Court held that there was no material on record to show as to what would be the cost of transforming the paddy field and salt pan into a land suitable for construction activity. The High Court has held that in the absence of any evidence on this point, there was no scope for argument that the land was suitable for construction activity. The High Court has held that even though the lands in Case No. 2 of 1979 were merely 200 metres away that by itself was not sufficient to establish comparability of those lands with the acquired land. The High Court has held that merely because those lands were also paddy land was not sufficient to draw a conclusion that the acquired land should also be awarded at the same rate. The High Court has held that factors such as length and width of the land, the level of the land, type of the soil, location, etc. are the various factors which are required to be looked into and considered for the purposes of comparison between the land in question with f the land which was the subject-matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1979. The High Court has held that