A. P. LAVANDE, J.:- By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated 29.10.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 43/1999 by which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) has been rejected.

2. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act which was published in the official gazette dated 16.11.1992, the Government of Goa acquired for public purpose land admeasuring 1,15,000 square metres from the survey no.499/0 situated at Tivim, belonging to Shri Narayan Vithu Vaigankar. The appellants are the legal representatives of said Narayan Vithu Vaigankar. The claimant late Narayan Vaigankar claimed Rs.170/- per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer by an award dated 22.3.1995 fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.20/- per square metre. Late Shri Narayan Vaigankar claimed to be lawful tenant in possession of the property which was belonging to Communidade of Tivim.

3. Dissatisfied with the award late Shri Narayan Vaigankar sought reference under section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 170/- per square metre.

4. In Land Acquisition Case no. 43/1999 before the 1st Additional District Judge, Panaji, the legal representatives of late Narayan Vaigankar examined four witnesses namely AWl Bhiku Narayan Vaigankar, appellant no.1(b), AW2 Mr. Subhashchandra Bhobe, Valuer, AW3 Gurudas Toraskar and AW4 Arminio Ribeiro. The Reference Court framed following issue:-

Whether the applicants prove that the rate of compensation for the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs.170/- per square metre?

5. The Reference Court after analysing the evidence led by the appellants herein held that appellants herein had not discharged the burden cast on them to prove that the market rate of the acquired land as on date of Section 4 notification was Rs.170/- per square metre and consequently rejected the reference.

6. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court did not properly appreciate the evidence led by the appellants and without applying its mind dismissed the reference. Learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land was bharad type of land and, as such, the Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the sale deeds dated 20.12.1989, 11.7.1990 and 2.10.1987 relied upon by the appellants which were in close vicinity of the acquired land. Learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land had the facility of electricity as well as water pipe lines. Mr. Kantak, further submitted that the reference under Section 30 of the Act was settled between the parties by filing consent terms and Communidade of Tivim was paid an amount of Rs.4,52,240/- and the entire balance compensation was paid to the appellants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the facilities like transport, hospital, market, shops, banks, church etc were available in the close proximity of the acquired land. Learned Counsel further submitted that the industrial estate at Tivim was situated at a distance of about 600 metres and Mapusa market is situated at a distance of about 4 kms. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court could not have rejected the reference on the ground that the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 was attracted. Learned Counsel further submitted that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the sale deeds were not in respect of comparable lands, is patently unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants were 'interested parties" and at no point of time had approached Mamlatdar for tenancy under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. Learned Counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment dated 11.10.2011 delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Goa Housing Board Versus Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar & another: [2011 ALL SCR 2723) and submitted that even in respect of tenanted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document