JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State and Mr. Raunak Kantak for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 03.05.2012 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.61/2008 enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.50/- to Rs.140/- per sq. mtr.

3. By notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act), the State acquired the respondents' property admeasuring 925 sq. mtrs. surveyed under No.235/1 (P) situated in the village Jua, Tiswadi Taluka for the construction of a single lane bridge including approaches at Akhada, St. Estevam.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his Award dated 19.09.2006 determined the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. The LAO also awarded compensation of Rs.61,925/- for the sluice gate in the acquired land.

5. The respondents, aggrieved by the determination, applied for reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court vide the impugned Award dated 03.05.2012 has determined the market rate at Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. and further, awarded compensation of Rs.77,521/- for the sluice gate. Hence this appeal.

6. Ms. Linhares learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Reference Court has incorrectly relied upon Sale Deed dated 18.07.2001 (Exh.16) and the Judgment of the Mamlatdar (Exh.17) determining the market rate in respect of a mundkarial plot made in the year 1996. She submits that none of these were comparable instances.

7. Ms. Linhares submits that the Sale Deed at Exh.16 was in respect of an area of only 71.93 sq. mtrs. Further, this property already had a structure. Therefore this sale instance was not comparable.

8. Ms. Linhares submits that Exh.17 was based on consent terms filed by the landlord and the mundkar and therefore the same was also not a comparable instance.

9. Ms. Linhares submits that there is evidence that the acquired land had a pond and in that sense, the same was not suitable for either construction or agricultural purposes. She submits that there was no legal evidence to enhance the compensation for the sluice gate.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons Ms. Linhares submits that the impugned award warrants interference.

11. Mr. Raunak Kantak learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1(a) to 1(f) defended the impugned award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out that Exh.16 was indeed a comparable instance because it concerned the property in the immediate neighborhood of the acquired land. He pointed out that the Reference Court had made ample deductions both on account of the size of the sale deed plot and the existence of a small structure therein. He pointed out that the deduction is to the extent of almost 67% and therefore there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned award. He submits that even Exh.17 can be considered and with an escalation of prices, the rate would be even higher than what has been awarded by the impugned award.

12. Mr. Kantak submits that there is clear evidence that the acquired land had a sluice gate and therefore, the property along with the sluice gate was required to be considered as an integrated property. He submits that such properties are very valuable because Goa is a State where there is never any lack of demand for fish. He points out that now few such places are remaining in the State of Goa. He, therefore, submits that there is no case for interfering with the impugned award.

13. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

14. The Reference Court in this case has mainly relied upon the sale instance dated 18.07.2001 (Exh.16) in which a property admeasuring about 71.93 sq.mtrs. was sold at Rs.358/- per sq.mtr. This was in the year 2001 and therefore, on granting escalation at 10% per annum the Reference Court has arrived at the market rate of Rs.475/- per sq.mtr. in the year 2004 when the Section 4 notification was issued.

15. Therea