S.A. Bobde, J.

These two First appeals can be conveniently disposed of together since they relate to adjacent pieces of land and since the basis for enhancing the compensation by the Reference Court is almost the same.

2. The appeals involve the enhancement of compensation in respect of two adjacent plots being plot Nos. 21 and 27, situated on the Panaji Miramar road; closer to Miramar.

3. The Notification under Section 4 was published on 18th February, 1982, and declared that the acquisition was necessary for parks and recreational purposes.

FIRST APPEAL NO 57 OF 1998

4. In this appeal, the State has questioned the enhancement of compensation made by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It involves acquisition of 600 sq. metres of land.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. metre. Dissatisfied with this rate the respondent sought a reference. After hearing the evidence and taking into account the documentary evidence placed on record, the Reference Court enhanced the rate of compensation from 250/- per sq. metre to Rs.313.50 per sq. metre. The State has questioned the enhancement in this appeal. At the outset it must be noted that the rate has been enhanced on the basis of an Award AW 4/B, which was in respect of land acquired by the State only 150 metres, away from the land in question. In that case, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.285/- per sq. metre in LAC No. 115/90 decided on 7th August, 1995. In this case the respondent examined five witnesses which included an approved veluer. These witnesses produced several documents on record, including the Award of the Reference Court in LAC No. 115/90 referred to above, i.e. AW 4/B and certain sale instances. Keeping the other evidence aside, it would be sufficient if one takes into account the consequences of the Award AW 4/B, since it is that Award which has been taken into account by the Reference Court.

6. As stated above, the land which is the subject-matter of this Award is situated 150 metres away from the present land. It is thus in the same locality. The difference is that the present land abuts the Dayanand Bandodkar Marg. There is no dispute about this either. Having regard to this fact the Reference Court has granted an increase of 5% over the rate of Rs.285/- per sq. metre granted under AW 4/B.

7. Shri Bharne, learned Government Advocate however, submitted that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. metre should be maintained and the enhancement should be set aside completely. According to the learned counsel, this is due to the fact that there is evidence on record that the self-same land was purchased in the year 1997 by the respondent for Rs.55/- per sq. metre. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the enhancement could have been made at the usual rate of 10% per year. However, this would fall short of the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, at least the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer should be maintained. The learned counsel relied on the settled proposition of law that where there is evidence of the purchase of the self-same land, the rate at which the land was purchased by the owner should be taken into account. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in V.M. Salgaocar & Brother Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 302 and Shakuntalabai Ltd. (Smt) & others v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 152. There is no doubt about this proposition, but it is important to note that in these cases. Their Lordship have not fixed the multiplier which should be applied to the rate at which the owner had himself purchased the land. Therefore, the question is what would be a realistic rate at which the rates of land in question should be enhanced. Shri J. D'Souza, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Printers H