JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Sardessai learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

2. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award dated 04.01.2014 made by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.42/2009 dismissing the appellants' reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. By notification dated 06.12.2006 issued under Section 4 of the said Act, the State proposed to acquire the appellants' property admeasuring 19,611 square meters surveyed under No.153/2 of Torcem Pernem Goa for Tillari Irrigation canal.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 29.05.2009 determined the market rate atRs.40/- per square meter. Dissatisfied with this rate, the appellants applied for reference under Section 18 of the said Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per square meter for coconut garden area and Rs.400/- for cashew garden area.

5. The reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 04.01.2014 has however dismissed the reference and maintained the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this case there were no comparable sale instances available and therefore, the reference Court was obliged to adopt the capitalization method which it has failed to adopt. He relied on the Union of India and another Vs. Shanti Devi and others, (1983) 4 SCC 542, Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy and others, (2002) 3 SCC 527, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and others, (1984) 2 SCC 120 in support of this submission.

7. Mr. Usgaonkar then submitted that in this case, the settlement report prepared under the Land Revenue Code was available for Pernem Taluka where the acquired property is situated. He submits that this settlement report was duly tendered in evidence. Based upon this settlement report, the market rate in so far as the cashew lands are concerned should have been taken at least Rs.400/- per square meter. He referred to the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief tendered by the appellants and in the absence of any significant cross-examination to submit calculations provided by the appellants ought to have been accepted. He relied on Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W., Jalgaon Vs. Chindha Fakira Patil, (2007) 2 BCR 370, Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.786 of 2011 decided on 15th December 2011 in the petition instituted by the present appellants.

8. Mr. Usgaonkar submitted that the reference Court erred in relying on the sale deed dated 18.03.1998 (Exhibit 16) by which the appellants purchased the larger property of which the acquired property is only a part because such sale deed was entered into in the year 1998 and the Section 4 notification, in this case, was issued in the year 2006. He submitted that for want of proximity in time the sale deed could not have been regarded as a comparable instance. He submitted that there can be several reasons why the vendors sell and the vendees purchase the property for a particular price. He gave instances of difficulties faced by vendors who then sell the properties for suppressed rates. He submitted that there is no legal bar for a vendor to sell and for a vendee to purchase the property at any price. He submitted that in this case in the absence of any comparable sale instance, the only correct method for determination of the market rate was the capitalization method based on the agricultural yield of the acquired property. He submitted that fortunately, in this case, the settlement report prepared under Land Revenue Code by the expert was available, and based thereon the market rate in respect of only cashew land would come to Rs.400/- per square meter.

9. Mr. Usgaonk