JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. P. Kamat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants – State and Mr. Shukra Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent – claimant.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 28.05.2012 made by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.107 of 1999 enhancing compensation in respect of the acquired land from Rs.7/-per square meter to Rs.200/- per square meter.

3. Vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the said Act) issued on 06.09.1996, the respondent's land admeasuring 594 square meters at Chaudi, Canacona Goa was acquired for construction of a bus stand. The Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 30.10.1998 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7/-per square meter. The reference Court vide award dated 05.03.2004 dismissed the reference.

4. Aggrieved by such dismissal, the respondent–claimant instituted First Appeal No.141/2004 questioning the award dated 05.03.2004.

5. This Court vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2010 set aside the award dated 05.03.2004 and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for granting the opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence. In pursuance of the remand, the reference Court did permit the parties to lead additional evidence and thereafter vide impugned judgment and award dated 28.05.2012, has determined the market rate at Rs.200/-per square meter. It is this impugned judgment and award that is questioned in this appeal by the appellants – State.

6. Ms. Kamat learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that there was no legal evidence on record to establish that the acquired land was in the settlement zone. She submits that the evidence on record bears out that the acquired land was a portion of the low-lying paddy field. She submits that there is evidence on record that the acquired land was at a level much lower than the surrounding area/road. She pointed out that there is evidence that the acquired land was a narrow strip of irregular shape and dimension. She submits that these aspects have not been considered by the reference Court which incorrectly relied upon the sale deed dated 30.06.1994 at Exhibit 24- C.

7. Ms. Kamat submitted that the sale instance dated 30.06.1994 was not at all comparable sale instance. She pointed out that the land forming the subject matter of the sale deed was barren land, admittedly in the settlement zone. She submitted that none of the negative factors attached to the acquired land were even remotely applicable to the sale deed land. She, therefore, submits that the reference Court erred in relying on the sale instance dated 30.06.1994.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, Ms. Kamat submits that the impugned award warrants interference.

9. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent – claimant at the very outset relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730 to submit that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. He submits that in the present case, the impugned judgment and award is clearly right and warrants no interference whatsoever.

10. Mr. Usgaonkar submitted that the sale instance dated 30.06.1994 was indeed comparable. Based on the same market value of the acquired land would come to at least Rs.330/-per square meter. However, the reference Court has made deductions based on the so-called negative factors pointed out by Ms. Kamat and thereafter arrived at the rate of Rs.200/- per square meter.

11. Mr. Usgaonkar submitted that Chaudi is a central place in Canacona where all Government offices, markets, etc., are located. He submits that it is for this reason the land was acquired for the construction of a new bus stand here. He submits that there can perhaps be no greater prime location in Canacona than Chaudi. He, therefore, submits that the rate determined by the reference Co