All these appeals with cross objections are disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of the same acquisition.

2. By notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ("the Act" for short), which was published in the Official Gazette dated 30.4.1992, lands of several persons were acquired for public purpose, namely, construction of road from NH-17 near Sesa Goa Workshop to join Pale-Birla Airport road near MES college in village Panchayat, Sancoale. An area admeasuring 2050 sq.metres belonging to the respondents in the appeals was part of the acquired land. Each of the respondents has 1/5 share in the acquired land. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/-per sq.metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made award on 16.12.1994 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per sq.metre. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded and the area for which the compensation was awarded, the respondents sought references under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/-per sq.metre.

3. Pursuant to the references, land acquisition case nos.27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 1996 were registered. In all the references, Pandurang Kantak, the respondent in first appeal no.48 of 2003 was examined on behalf of the claimants. The claimants also examined Abdul Aziz Shaikh Mohidin, AW.2, the vendor of the sale deed dated 29.1.1993 and Ravindra Tamba, AW.3 Civil Engineer and Approved Valuer in support of their case.

4. On behalf of the appellants herein, no evidence was led before the Reference Court.

5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants placed reliance upon sale deed dated 16.5.1991 (Exhibit AW.1/B) by which an area of 325 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.307/- per sq.metre. By another sale deed (Exhibit Aw.1/C) dated 14.6.1991, an area of 240 sq.metres at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.metre was sold. Abdul Aziz Shaikh Mohidin, AW.2 the vendor, produced sale deed dated 29.1.1993, (Exhibit AW.2//A) by which an area of 340 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs 250/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court after appreciating the evidence led by the claimants fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/-per sq.metre. Before the Reference Court, the claimants did not press the reference in so far as the area is concerned.

6. The Reference Court held that Exhibit (AW. 2/A) though a post notification sale deed was comparable to the acquired land and held that the land sold by the said sale deed was similar to the acquired land and considering that the acquired land was situated in the interior at a long distance from National Highway 17, deducted 50% from the price mentioned in the said sale deed and arrived at compensation at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq.metre. The claimants have filed cross objection claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.249/-per sq.metre, whereas, the appellants have filed the appeals challenging grant of higher compensation by the Reference Court.

7. Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the acquired land was similar to the plot in sale deed (Exhibit AW2/A) and the Reference Court has erred in comparing the acquired land with the sale deed plot (Exhibit AW.2/A) and granting higher compensation. She further submitted that the plot sold by sale deed Exhibit AW2/A is a developed plot and was sold for residential purpose, and, therefore, the acquired land is not comparable to the said plot. In the alternative, she submitted that the Reference Court has erred in deducting only 50% from the price mentioned in the sale deed at (Exhibit AW.2/A) and if the said sale deed was considered by the Reference Court as comparable sale instance, the Reference court ought to have deducted 75% from the price mentioned in the sale deed. Ms. Linhares further submitted that the appeals be allowed and the cross objections filed by the respondent