JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK J.

1. Heard Ms. Maria Correia for the Appellant and Mr. Sameer Khedekar for the Respondents (Claimants).

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30.11.2015 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 44/2014, enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Rs. 53/- per sq. meter to Rs. 250/- per sq. meter.

3. By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) dated 2.5.2005, the Appellant proposed to acquired the Claimants' land admeasuring 1362 sq. meters surveyed under No. 395/1, Marcaim, Goa for a public purpose of road widening.

4. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), by his Award dated 29.8.2007, determined the rate of the acquired land at Rs. 53/- per sq. meter and offered the same to the Claimants. The Claimants, dissatisfied with the offer, sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act, which came to be registered before the Reference Court as Land Acquisition Case No. 44/2014. By the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.11.2015, the Reference Court has now enhanced the rate to Rs. 250/- per sq. meter. Hence this appeal by the State.

5. Ms. Maria Correia, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate pointed out that the sale deeds relied upon by the Reference Court were post-Section 4 instances. She pointed out that the sale instances at Exhibits 18 and 19 were executed 55 and 71 days after the date of issuance of Section 4 notification. She submitted that the possibility of the rates being hiked up in anticipation of the acquisition, cannot be ruled out.

6. Ms. Correia submitted that the sale deeds, in any case, were not comparable sale instances because, the sale deed plots were developed plots, situated at quite a distance from the acquired property. She states that the evidence about the nature of the plots was quite confusing with both, the Claimants and their expert taking contrary stances. She submits that the Reference Court has not made any suitable deductions when comparing a developed plot with an undeveloped plot, like the acquired property.

7. Ms. Correia submits that there is evidence that the acquired property was zoned as an orchard. She submits that the acquired property or rather a portion of it fell within the road widening areas. All these factors have not even been considered by the Reference Court and based upon the two sale instances, the rate has been enhanced to Rs. 250/- per sq. metre.

8. Ms. Correia points out that there is no evidence of whether the amenities deposed to by the Claimant were in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification. She points out that the expert valuer (AW-2) admitted that he had not visited the sale deed plots before preparing his opinion or deposing in the Court.

9. For all the aforesaid reasons, Ms. Correia submits that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned award be set aside.

10. Mr. Sameer Khedekar, learned Counsel for the Claimants defends the impugned Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out the various amenities that attach to the acquired property. He pointed out that there was clear evidence that these amenities are available for the last 25 years, or thereabouts. He pointed out that the acquired property is near the Marcaim Industrial Estate and several developments have taken place around the acquired property.

11. Mr. Khedekar submitted that the sale instances are of the plots in the same village. He submits that the sale instances are hardly a few days or a couple of months after issuance of Section 4 notification. He pointed out that suitable deductions have been made by the Reference Court and, therefore, there is no warrant for interference.

12. Mr. Khedekar relies on State of Goa and Another vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 686 to submit that the lands within the road widening areas also deserve to be compensated. He relies on Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3