JUDGMENT :

1. I heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Ms. Neha Kholkar learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

2. The appellant challenges the judgment and award dated 19.10.2018, made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case no.20/2012, dismissing the reference seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. By a notification dated 16.11.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act), the State initiated acquisition to realign MDR-21 between Bicholim to Mayem near Dempo Mining Corporation Screening Plant at Bicholim, Goa. The Appellant’s property admeasuring 19813 sq. mtrs. surveyed under no.82/1 (part), 89 (part), and 96 (part) of village Mayem, Taluka Bicholim, were proposed to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the rate at Rs.175/-per sq. mtr. The Appellant’s reference claiming the enhancement to Rs.2,500/-per sq. mtr. was rejected by the Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that three sale deeds were produced based upon which the market rate should have been assessed at least at Rs.320/-per sq. mtr. after making deductions of almost 60%. He submits that the evidence about the amenities enjoyed by the acquired property was virtually unchallenged. He submits that the acquired lands were within the Bicholim municipal area, in a settlement zone close to tourist spots like Mayem lake. The acquired property was also very close to Heera Talkies, hospitals, electricity department, temples, schools, colleges, etc. The Reference Court has glossed over all this evidence.

5. Ms. Neha Kholkar learned that the Additional Government Advocate contends that the impugned award was based on its reasoning. She submits that none of the sale deeds were comparable instances because there is no clarity about the distance of the sale deed plots from the acquired land. She submits that, in any case, the sale deeds were in respect of areas of 120, 42.48, and 330 sq. mtrs. The sale deeds were in respect of developed and converted plots. In contrast, the acquired land is quite large, i.e., 19813 sq. mtrs. and the same was undeveloped. She submits that the acquired lands abut the mining leases, and on account of the dust pollution in the area, there was no building potential. She, therefore, submits that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Godinho, by way of a rejoinder, points out that the Appellant, who examined herself as AW1, had produced on record the award of the LAO dated 12.12.1990. He referred to the sale statistics in the said award and observed that the area's rate would come to Rs.693.50 per sq. mtr. He also pointed out how the LAO based only on a local inquiry conducted through the Talathi arrived at the figure of Rs.175/-per sq. mtr. Mr. Godinho, therefore, submitted that the minimum rate to be determined in this case would be Rs.320/-per sq. mtr. even after a deduction of 60% from the rate of Rs.800/-per sq. mtr. they were computed based on the Sale Deeds at Exhibits 22,23 & 24.

7. Ms. Kholkar, relying on Chimanlal Hargovinddas V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 751 submitted that the reference under Section 18 is not an appeal against the award of the LAO, and the material relied upon by the LAO cannot be considered unless the same is produced and proved before the Reference Court.

8. The rival contentions now fall for determination.

9. In this case, by the impugned award, the Reference Court has rejected the reference and maintained the rate of Rs.175/-per sq. mtr. in respect of the acquired property.

10. In this, the Reference Court completely ignored the unchallenged evidence about the property's location and the amenities enjoyed. AW1 Smt. Kishori, who was almost 82 years old when she deposed before the Court, stated that the acquired land is within the Bicholim Municipal area and close to important tourist spots like Mayem