The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Reference Court should treat the reference as an original proceeding and determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the claimant and Ms. Susan Linhares learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Both these appeals challenge the judgment and award dated 19.08.2017 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 67/2003 enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. to Rs. 55/- per sq. mtr.

3. First Appeal No. 58/2019 has been instituted by the State questioning the enhancement and First Appeal No. 6/2018 has been instituted by the claimant/ landowner seeking further enhancement up to Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, it is only appropriate that both these appeals are taken up for consideration and disposed of by a common judgment and order.

4. By notification dated 21.02.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, property admeasuring 1156 sq. mtrs. surveyed under Chalta No. 5 of PT Sheet No. 93, Panaji-Goa was proposed to be acquired for the public purpose of providing a sewerage system to the Government Polytechnic Complex at Panaji-Goa.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 01.04.1993 determined the rate of the acquired land at Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. The landowner (appellant in First Appeal No. 6/2018) applied for reference under Section 18 of the said Act. Mr. Costa, learned Senior Counsel, pointed out that for almost ten years no reference was made. Finally, the reference was made and numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 67/2003.

6. Mr. Costa submitted that without any valid service on the landowner the reference was dismissed. The landowner then instituted a Writ Petition and the order of the Reference Court dismissing the reference was set aside and the matter was remanded for a decision on merits. In pursuance of such remand, the Reference Court, vide the impugned judgment and award, has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 552/- per sq. mtr. as against the claim of Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr. Hence, the two appeals.

7. Ms. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, submitted that the enhancement cannot be supported by the evidence on record. She submitted that the acquired land was sloppy land adjoining the crematorium. She submitted that in respect of such land compensation had been determined at Rs. 452/- per sq. mtr. by the Reference Court and the appeal against the same was also dismissed by this Court on 24.01.2013. She submits that the Reference Court without considering these aspects has unduly enhanced the rates to Rs. 552/- per sq. mtr.

8. Ms. Linhares submits that only the lands that were close to the Panaji-Taligao road were granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr. She submitted that the evidence on record bears out that the acquired lands were away from the Panaji-Taligao road and, therefore, the Reference Court erred in taking the base at Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr.

9. Based on the aforesaid, Ms. Linhares submits that the First appeal No. 58/2019 may be allowed and the rate suitably reduced.

10. On the other hand, Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the landowner submits that there was no justification for the Reference Court to deny the rate of Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr. He relied on judgment and order of this Court dated 18.01.2022 in First Appeal No. 60/2013 where, under the same notification and in respect of virtually the adjacent land, compensation was determined at Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr. He submits that such compensation was determined in respect of the land belonging to this very land owner’s family. He points out that even in First Appeal No. 312/2007 and First Appeal No. 108/2008, the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 had approved the rate of Rs. 735/- per sq. mtr. in respect of adjacent lands by relying on Sale Deed dated 22.01.1992 which in turn was based on the Agreement to Sale dated 21.01.1990. For all these reasons, Mr. Costa submitted that First Appeal No. 6/2018 ought to be allowed and