JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. V. Sardessai learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and award dated 19.03.2015 in Land Acquisition Case No.27/2006 made by the reference Court. By the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court has enhanced the market rate in respect of the acquired land from Rs.69.33 per sq. mtrs., as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.390/- per sq. mtrs. The appellants had however claimed compensation at the market rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. mtrs. Hence, the present appeal.

3. In this case, vide notification dated 02.01.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the said Act) the Government proposed to acquire the appellants' land admeasuring 1090 sq. mtrs. from survey No.76/0 of village Curti, Ponda Goa, for construction of road from Mestawada, Curti to Prabhunagar in Ponda Constituency.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 13.10.2004 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.69.33 per sq. mtrs. The appellants aggrieved by such determination sought a reference claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. mtrs.

5. The reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 19.03.2015 has determined the compensation at Rs.390/- per sq. mtrs.

6. Mr. Menezes submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned award. He points out that at para 21 of the impugned judgment and award the reference Court has possibly mistakenly taken the date of Section 4 notification as 02.01.2000 where in fact the correct date is indisputably 02.01.2004.

7. Mr. Menezes pointed out that it is on account of the aforesaid error that is apparent on the face of the record, the reference Court blindly relied upon the rate of Rs.390/- per sq. mtrs. determined in the judgment dated 11.07.2006 (Exhibit 25). He submits that the rate determined in Exhibit 25 was in the context of Section 4 notification dated 18.10.1999. He submits that the reference Court was dutybound to appreciate escalation in rates from 1999 to 2004 which it has failed to do. He, therefore, submits that the compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. mtrs. ought to have been awarded.

8. Mr. Menezes submitted that the appellants had produced comparative sale instances at Exhibits 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. He submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 20 was dated 23.06.1999 and in terms, thereof the market rate as in 1999 would come to Rs.975/- per sq. mtrs. He submits that this sale deed was not appropriately considered by the reference Court and based thereon the compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- has been unjustly denied to the appellants.

9. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Menezes submits that this appeal may be allowed and the market rate be determined at the enhanced rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. mtrs.

10. Mr. Sardessai learned Additional Government Advocate defended the impugned judgment and award based on the reasoning reflected therein. In particular, he pointed out that the award at Exhibit 25 was challenged by these very appellants as well as the State by instituting First Appeal Nos. 295 of 2006 and 56 of 2007. However, this Court by judgment and order dated 08.11.2011 finalized the rate of Rs.390/- per sq. mtrs. in respect of the property surveyed under No.79(part), 80(part), and 81(part) which were also acquired for construction of a road from the very appellants. He submits that even this road was in the very same vicinity of Curti, Ponda Goa.

11. Mr. V. Sardessai pointed out that the sale deeds the appellants now pressed for consideration including the sale deed at Exhibit 20 were considered in the award at Exhibit 25 which has attained finality. He, therefore, submits that now it is not open to the appellants to once again raise any claim based on the sale deed at Exhibit 25 or for that matter other sale deeds.

12. Mr. Sardessai for the aforesaid reasons su