F.M. REIS, J.

1. Heard Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 01.09.2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 2004, whereby the reference filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said Act) for enhancement of compensation came to be rejected.

3. Pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act, bearing No. 22/43/2000-RD dated 13.11.2000 and published in the official gazette dated 23.11.2000, land was acquired for the expansion of the Industrial Estate Phase IV EPIP at Verna and Loutolim Villages of Salcete Taluka. Amongst the lands which were acquired, two portions of the property admeasuring 3500 square metres of the property surveyed under No. 279/2 and an area of 2100 square metres of the property surveyed under No. 279/3 belonging to the appellants were also acquired. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 29.09.2003, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the appellants preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square metre. The Reference Court by impugned Judgment and Award dated 01.09.2005, rejected the reference filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the appellants have preferred the present Appeal.

4. Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has pointed out that the Reference Court has refused the reference essentially on the ground that considering that the appellants were agricultural tenants under the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, the land acquired had no potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has essentially refused the reference as the appellant has failed to establish the agricultural value of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further pointed out that sale instance produced by the appellants establish that the market value of the acquired land was much higher than the one offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired was for the purpose of Industrial Estate and that this Court had fixed the compensation in respect of lands acquired pursuant to the same Notification at the rate of Rs. 70/- per square metre in First Appeal No. 24 of 2006 passed on 24.06.2011. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Apex Court in the Judgment in the case of Goa Housing Board vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar & another passed on 11.10.2011 has held that considering that the market value of the adjoining property was fixed at a particular price on the basis that it had potentialities of being used for non-agricultural purpose the tenanted lands located adjoining said lands can be awarded compensation at 50 percent of market value. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the said Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Goa Housing Board vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar & another (supra) wherein the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs. 70/- per square metre, the appellants are entitled for atleast a compensation of Rs. 35/- per square metres. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the Judgment of the Apex Court and pointed out that in view of the findings rendered therein, the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation based on the Judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 24 of 2006. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired in the present case and the land which was subjec