JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Prashil Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants, and Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent (Claimant).

2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 02.05.2012 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 2007 enhancing the compensation for the acquired land admeasuring about 175 sq. mts from Rs.50/-per square meter to Rs.408/-per square meter.

3. Mr. Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the Reference Court erred in relying on the Sale Deed which was executed post the Section 4 Notification issued on 29.12.2001. He submits that the Sale Deed was in respect of two fully developed plots and, therefore, could not have been regarded as comparable instances. He further relied on the decision of this Court dated 12.09.2014 disposing of First Appeal No.30 of 2011 to point out that in respect of land acquired under the very same Notification, this Court had approved compensation @ Rs. 133/- per square meter. He pointed out that the land involved in First Appeal No.30 of 2011 was from the Village of Khandepar, which has better amenities than the land involved in the present Appeal at Usgao. He, therefore, submits that in this case the compensation could not have been enhanced beyond Rs.133/-per square meter.

4. Mr. Arolkar also submits that the acquired land was within the setback area and therefore there was no potential for further development. He submits that even this aspect has not been properly considered by the Reference Court and, therefore, the impugned award warrants interference.

5. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that the Sale Deed which has been relied upon by the Reference Court was executed hardly four months after the issuance of Section 4 Notification. He points out that more than 50% deduction has been made towards development charges. He points out that the acquired land had a Soda factory and, therefore, the acquired land was also developed land. He points out that even a valuation report had been produced justifying the enhancement. He relies on State of Goa & Anr. V/s. Gopal Baburao Gaudo & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 686 to contend that lands allegedly within setback areas have to also be paid suitable compensation. Mr. Mulgaonkar also points out that the decision in First Appeal No. 30 of 2011 itself records that the compensation of Rs.133/-per square meter was much lower than the actual market price payable. For all these reasons Mr. Mulgaonkar submits that this appeal may be dismissed.

6. Rival contentions now fall for determination.

7. In this case, since Mr. Arolkar has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 30 of 2011, it is necessary to analyze the same for appreciating Mr. Arolkar's contention.

8. The decision dated 12.09.2014 in First Appeal No.30 of 2011 also concerns the acquisition of land under the Notification dated 29.12.2001, which is incidentally the very same Notification under which the land in the present Appeal came to be acquired. The acquisition is for road widening and improvement of geometrics of KM 116 to 121 of NH-4A (Additional Area). The acquisition involves lands in the adjacent villages of Usgao and Khandepar.

9. In the present appeal we are concerned with the acquisition of land admeasuring 175 sq.mts from the Village of Usgao. In First Appeal No. 30 of 2011, this Court was concerned with the acquisition of lands in the adjacent Village of Khandepar under the very same Notification. There is no evidence about any disparity of facilities in the Villages of Usgao and Khandepar. This Court, in its decision dated 12.09.2014 whilst disposing of First Appeal No.30 of 2011, no doubt, upheld the award of compensation of Rs.133/-per square meter in respect of the acquired land in Khandepar Village.

10. However, if the decision dated 12.09.2014 is per