F.M. REIS, J. :- The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 18/12/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.43/1996, whereby the reference filed by the appellants came to be rejected.

2. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as "the said Act", dated 13/06/1991, the respondents acquired land admeasuring an area of 27461 square metres from the property surveyed under no.110/10 and 850 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 106/6 for the construction of a new BG line between Roha and Manglore in the villages of Ella and Carambolim in Tiswadi Taluka. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the said Act and offered compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed a sum of Rs.400/ - for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 18/12/2003, the reference Court rejected the reference filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment thy appellants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously refused to allow the reference filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation when there was material on record to show that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously refused to rely upon the sale instances produced by the appellants which were the lands which were comparable to the land acquired and in the vicinity thereof. The learned Counsel has further submitted that he has examined an expert Shri Karan Kumar Gedam, who has evaluated the land acquired at the rate of Rs.350/ - which has been erroneously discarded by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was adjoining National Highway and had high potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purposes. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the appellants want to rely upon the judgment of this Court wherein the market value of land in the vicinity of the lands acquired has been determined. The learned Counsel has submitted that the appellants have filed an application for leave to produce additional evidence in the nature of the judgment/award passed in other proceedings in respect of the lands which are located in the vicinity of the acquired land and comparable to the land acquired. The teamed Counsel, as such, submitted that considering the said judgment the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation, and as such the matter be remanded to the Reference Court.

4. On the other hand, Shri E. Afonso, the learned Counsel appealing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly rejected the reference filed by the appellants. The sale instance produced was a post notification sale deed which cannot be the basis for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. With regard to the judgment sought to be produced by the appellants before this Court. Shri Afonso has submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish comparability of the land acquired with the land which was subject matter of the said instances and, as such, the question of relying upon the said judgment/award would not arise. The learned Counsel, as such, submitted that the appeal deserves to be rejected.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal:

POINT FOR DETERMINTION:

Whether the Reference Court was justified to reject the reference filed by the appellants.

6. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the Reference Court h