1.Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 31/7/2002 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa ('Reference Court', for short), in Land Acquisition Case No.9/1995.

2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said L. A. Case no. 9/1995.

3. By Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('L.A. Act', for short), the Government acquired land situated at Morombi-O-Grande at Panaji, for the purpose of laying additional conveying main for supplying water to Panaji city. This included an area of 1470 square metres of land from survey holding no. 259 of Morombi-O-Grande, belonging to the applicant. By award dated 23/1/1987, the Land Acquisition Officer, ('L.A.O.', for short), offered compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per square metre Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicant sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, claiming that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs. 225/- per square metre, which gave rise to the said L.A. Case No.9/1995.

4. The applicant examined himself as AW.1 and produced two sale deeds. He also examined a Government registered valuer namely Shri Pramod Dessai, an architect as AW.2, who produced the valuation report. The applicant examined his nephew Shri Vassant Wagle as AW.3, who produced the Form no. I and XIV and the survey plan of survey no.259/1. The respondents, on the other hand, examined the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., Panaji, Works Division III namely Anand Panchamukhi as RW.1 and another Assistant Engineer Sub- Div. III, Works Division III, P.W.D, Panaji, namely S.P. Jadhav as RW.2.

5. The Reference Court declined to rely upon any of the sale deeds produced by the applicant as also the valuation report. However, it has held that on account of the acquisition of the suit plot, the access of the applicant to the road has been cut off and he is forced to pass through the acquired land itself in order to have access to the unacquired portion of his property which has the area of more than 50,000 square metres. Considering the above, the reference court gave a flat increase of Rs.10/- per square metre to the offer made by the L.A.O. and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter.

6. The applicant has filed the First Appeal No.32/2003 for enhancement, whereas, the respondents have filed the First Appeal No.53/2003 to set aside the impugned judgment and award.

7. Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri M.S. Joshi argued on behalf of the applicant, whereas, Learned Advocate Shri V. Rodrigues argued on behalf of the respondents.

8. Learned Advocate Shri M.S. Joshi argued that there is no basis for merely giving increase of Rs.10/- to the compensation fixed by the learned L.A.O., when the applicant had produced on record the sale transactions, pertaining to similar land, in the vicinity of the acquired land, evidencing that the price of the land in that locality at the relevant time was much higher. He further argued that merely because the acquired land is a strip of land acquired for laying pipeline by the side of the road, it cannot be held that it had no value. He contended that since the acquired land is proved to be a part of a bigger property of the applicant, it had appropriate value just like the portion behind it. In support of his contention, he relied upon “State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others” [(2009) 10 SCC 686]. Learned Shri, Joshi, on behalf of the applicant, further argued that previously there was free access to the property of the applicant which, on account of the acquisition, has been blocked and on this count additional compensation has to be awarded to the applicant.

9. On the contrary, learned Advocate Mr. V. Rodrigues, on behalf of the respondents, argued that the pipeline has been laid underground, about one metre below the acquired land and the land has not been fenced and theref