JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pranav Vaze, holding for Mr. Nikhil Vaze for the Appellant and Mr. Vibhav Amonkar for the Respondents in both these Appeals.

2. The learned Counsel for the parties state that both these Appeals can be taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment and order since, the issues of fact and law that arise in both these matters, are substantially similar.

3. The land, which is a subject matter of First Appeal No.77/2015, admeasures 424 sq. metres and the land, which is the subject matter of First Appeal No. 78/2015 admeasures 22 sq. metres and is surveyed under No.11/1 of Village Ela, Old Goa.

4. In both the appeals, the challenge is to the separate Judgments and Awards dated 25/9/2013 by which the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.125/-to Rs.1252/-per sq. metre.

5. Mr. Pranav Vaze, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in this case, the Reference Court has almost exclusively relied on the sale deed dated 8/5/2008 (Exhibit-19) in respect of the land which was not comparable to the acquired lands. He points out that in the first instance, the sale deed dated 8/5/2008 was executed almost 18 months after the issuance of Section 4 Notification on 4/11/2006. He submits that though there is no general rule that in all cases post-Section 4 notification sale instances must be excluded from consideration, the Reference Court has not at all considered the impact of the acquisition on the enhancement of the property rates in the area and has mechanically made a deduction to the extent of only 20%. He submits that this is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddasvs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poonaandanr, (1988) 3 SCC 751, as also the very decisions relied upon by the Reference Court.

6. Mr. Vaze submitted that the sale instance dated 8/5/2008 is not a genuine transaction and is, in all probabilities, a gotten-up transaction only to secure enhancement of the compensation. He, therefore, submits that this sale transaction could never have been relied upon.

7. Mr. Vaze submitted that in any case, there is clear evidence that the property involved in the sale transaction at Exhibit-19, was a converted and developed property for which permission for the construction of a compound wall to enclose the same, was already obtained. He submitted that a perusal of this sale instance would show that the sale was effected for the construction of villas or otherwise, developing the property in question. He submitted that in contrast, the acquired properties are neither developed nor converted. He submitted that the sale instance properties were, therefore not at all comparable and, therefore, the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the same.

8. Mr. Vaze submitted that in this case, only the Claimants examined themselves and neither was any expert witness nor were the vendors or the vendees of the sale deed in question, examined. He submitted that only an expert could have deposed to the similarity of the acquired and the sale instance lands. He submitted that this is a case where there is no evidence to justify any enhancement.

9. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Vaze submits that the impugned Awards may be set aside and the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer may be restored.

10. Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel for the Claimants in both these Appeals, defends the impugned Awards based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that there is no rule that post-Section 4 notification sale instances have to be necessarily excluded from consideration. He relies on Chindha Vithal Sonawane, vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 1975 Mh.L.J. 469, Special Land Acquisition Officer (N) & anr. vs. Ramesh Mahadev Sinai Mulgaonkar (Dr.), 2005 (4) Bom. C.R. 234 and Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. Cell, Altinho, Panaji-Goa and anr. vs. Kalidas Atmaram Savaikar, 2018 (3) Mh.L.J. 769, in support of this proposition.

11. Mr. Amonkar submit