This common judgment shall dispose all the above four appeals which arise out of the common judgment and award, dated 29/8/2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Cases No. 228/1993, 229/1993, 230/1993 and 231/1993.

2. The applicants as well as the respondents are the same in all the said four cases. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said land acquisition cases.

3. Vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short), in the Official Gazette dated 27/8/1987, land was acquired for improvement and black topping of Gorvotte road in V. P. Nuvem of Salcete Taluka. This included an area of 460 square metres of land from survey no. 66/1 of Nuvem village. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/-per square metre to the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicants filed application under section 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A.O., which culminated into the four above referred Land Acquisition cases.

4. Since the acquired land concerned in all the four cases as also the parties were the same, by order dated 28/9/1998, the Reference Court clubbed all the four cases together.

5. The applicants claimed the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre as compensation for the acquired land. They further alleged that an area of 265 square metres having triangular shape was rendered useless on account of the acquisition and they claimed the same rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre as severance charges in respect of the said area.

6. The applicants examined the applicant no.1 namely, Shri Martinho P. Rodrigues as A.W.1 and his wife Mrs. Ida Rodrigues as A.W.2. The respondents examined Shri K. Rajan, the then Junior Civil Engineer, P.W.D, Division No. VI as R.W.1.

7. Upon analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court found that the sale deed dated 22/1/1992 (Exhibit A.W.2/A) produced by A.W.2 was relevant for determination of the market value of the acquired land and hence relying upon the same, fixed the market value at Rs. 58/-per square metre. However, since the applicants, in the reference application, had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre, the market rate of the acquired land was fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 50/-per square metre. Insofar as severed land admeasuring 265 square metres and having triangular shape is concerned, the Reference Court held that the same has been rendered useless. The reference Court awarded the same rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre towards severance charges in respect of the said land admeasuring 265 square metres.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court, the respondents have filed the present appeals.

9. Mr. Amey Kakdokar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, pointed out that the L.A.O. had offered only Rs. 5/-per square metre as compensation to the acquired land but the Reference Court has wrongly mentioned in the judgment that the L.A.O. had offered compensation of Rs. 25/-per square metre. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is nearly ten times the offer made by the L.A.O. and according to him, this is not sustainable. He further contended that A.W.1 had produced two sale deeds dated 16/9/1991 and 13/1/1994 respectively and the same have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court, they being post-notification transactions. He further contended that the sale deed dated 22/1/1982 produced by A.W.2 at Exhibit A.W.2/A pertains to the sale of land admeasuring 648 square metres made by the applicants to their mundkar. At the outset, he contended that this sale deed being five years prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the