The main legal point established in the judgment is the valuation of tenanted agricultural land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the entitlement to severance compensation despite not being claimed in the original application.

This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 5th May, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 83/2002. The above Miscellaneous Application No. 755/2008 has been filed by the appellants, under Order XLI, Rule 27(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for leave to produce the certificate of purchase dated 25/4/1997. As per order dated 13/10/2008, passed in the said M.C.A., the same is being considered along with the Appeal.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition case.

3. Vide Notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short), in the Official Gazette dated 18/4/2002 and lastly published at concerned places through the Mamlatdar of Bardez Taluka on 7/5/2002, Government acquired land from village Marra of Bardez Taluka, for expansion of Pilerne Industrial Estate. This included land admeasuring 9645 square metres from survey no. 85/1 of village Marra, in which the applicants were interested. By Award dated 25/9/2002, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) offered the rate of Rs. 21/-per square metre for the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicants filed reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A.O. and that gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 83/2002.

4. In their reference application, the applicants stated that they are deemed owners of the property admeasuring 35325 square metres bearing survey no. 85/1 of village Marra from which, land admeasuring 9645 square metres has been acquired and the compensation awarded is inadequate, being without considering the nature of the acquired land and the locality wherein it is situated. The applicants further stated that the L.A.O. did not consider the sales statistics of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land and also did not consider that the acquired land is situated in prime locality, ideal to set up an industry. The applicants claimed the market rate of Rs. 400/- per square metre.

5. Accordingly, an issue came to be framed, in terms of the claim of the applicants. The applicants examined the applicant no. 2 as AW.1 and an Architect and Government Registered Valuer, namely Subhashchandra Bhobe as Aw.2. The respondents did not examine any witness.

6. The learned Reference Court, upon assessment of the entire evidence on record, held that since indisputably the acquired land was tenanted agricultural land, the same could not have been used for any purpose other than agriculture, in view of the provisions of Section 18(k) of the G. D. D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, which came into force as from 2/11/1990. The Learned Reference Court, therefore, found force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 that the only way for claiming enhanced compensation, in the case, was by showing the agricultural income from the acquired land. The Reference Court found that there was no electricity connection, water connection and telephone connection or drainage provision in the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. It has been held that the sale deed dated 27/4/2002 at Exhibit 12 had all infrastructure such as approach roads, internal tar roads, gutters, drainages etc. and that the same was a totally developed plot and close to Porvorim town and abutting the tar road. It is further held that the land of the sale deed dated 26/4/2002, at Exhibit 13 was also a flat and even land adjoining Panaji-Mapusa National Highway and situated in Porvorim town itself in a developed area with all basic amenities at a close distance. Insofar as plot of the sale deed dated 09/01/2002, at Exhibit 14 is concerned, it was found that the same was sold along wit