The acquiring department has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 10-2-2012 upon remand of the file to it by this Court vide the order dated 10-6-2011 passed in the First Appeals No. 18/2006 and 310/2005. The parties would be referred to as the appellants and the respondents for brevity’s sake hereinafter.

2. Admittedly, the appellants had issued a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Act for short hereinafter for acquiring the land from the Survey No. 58/32 at Cunchelim, Bardez Taluka in an area of 570 square metres for the Tillari Irrigation Project. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), North Irrigation Department, Mapusa, LAO for short, had awarded the total compensation of Rs. 22,800/- at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land. The learned Reference Court passed the judgment and award disposing off the reference filed by the respondent enhancing the compensation from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per square metre and also awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards the severance charges. The parties aggrieved by the said award preferred appeals being the First Appeal No. 18/2006 and First Appeal No. 310/2005. This Court passed orders in the said appeals and quashed and set aside the award remanding the matter to the learned Reference Court to decide it afresh after permitting the parties to lead evidence for establishing the comparability of the suit land and the land acquired and forming a part of the judgment dated 5-8-2010. The learned Reference Court however, passed the impugned judgment and award and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 500/- per square metre with the other consequential reliefs without any basis.

3. The appellants challenged the award on the grounds that there was absolutely no material evidence brought on record by the respondents for granting such unjustifiable enhancement of compensation. The learned Reference Court grossly erred in expanding the scope of the remand made by this Court vide its order dated 10-6-2011 passed in the First Appeal No. 18/2006 and First Appeal No. 310/2005. While remanding the matter this Court by its order dated 10-6-2011 had directed the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh after allowing the parties to adduce evidence for establishing the comparability of the suit land and the land acquired and forming a part of the judgment dated 5-8-2010. The learned Reference Court was also directed to consider the sale instances produced by the respondents so as to ascertain whether they could form the basis for fixing the market value.

4. The learned Reference Court failed to appreciate that no directions were issued by this Court to consider the sale instances produced by the respondents herein and which were earlier considered by its predecessor in office while disposing the reference vide its order dated 16-9-2005. The learned Reference Court failed to appreciate that in terms of order of remand by this Court, there was no occasion for it to expand the scope of remand and to consider the sale instances produced by the respondents and more particularly the Sale Deed dated 11-11-1996. The learned Reference Court grossly erred in granting enhanced compensation from Rs. 40/- per square metre to Rs. 500/- per square metre and when the respondents had not even chosen to appear before the learned Reference Court and adduce any evidence in support of their claim for enhancement. The learned Reference Court fell in error on such and similar grounds taken in the appeal memo and therefore the impugned judgment and award had to be quashed and set aside.

5. Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate came to be heard on behalf of the appellants who reiterated the grounds of challenge in her submissions and submitted that there was an error by the learned Reference Court to enhance the compensation from Rs. 40/- to Rs. 500/- per square metre in the absence of any cogent material. The learned Refere