The Court emphasized the originality of the reference proceedings and the need to determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it, as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms. Gautami Kamat for the Appellant in First Appeal No.45/2016 and the Respondents in First Appeal No.128/2016.

2. Heard Ms. Priyanka Kamat learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the Appellant in First Appeal No.128/2016 and the Respondent in First Appeal No. 45/2016.

3. Both these appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 30/01/2016 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.7/2014, determining the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.  300/- per sq. meter, in place of Rs.  150/- per sq. meter determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO). Accordingly, the Appellant in First Appeal No. 128/2016 is aggrieved by the enhancement. However, the Appellants in First Appeal No.45/2016 contend that the enhancement should have been at least Rs. 2,500/- per sq. meter. Accordingly, it is only appropriate for a common judgment and order to dispose of both these Appeals.

4. By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) dated 31/7/2006, the Claimants' land measuring 4,270 sq. meters, surveyed under No.143/4-A Ela, Old Goa, was acquired for road widening (Ribandar Bye-pass). The LAO, by his award dated 17/8/2009, determined the rate at Rs. 150/- per sq. meter. However, by the impugned award dated 30/1/2016, the Reference Court has enhanced this rate to Rs.  300/- per sq. meter.

5. The Reference Court, in this case, has dealt with the matter extremely cursorily. She has failed to even look into, much less consider the evidence on record. Besides, she did not appreciate that she was not sitting in appeal against the Award of the LAO and has virtually treated the reference proceedings as a challenge to such an Award. Based on these fundamental errors, the impugned award must be set aside. The evidence is before this Court to determine the market rate here. A remand will unnecessarily delay the matters.

6. In an extremely brief but cursory award, the Reference Court has disposed of the Reference. She has refused to rely upon the sale instance dated 29/6/2006 on the specious plea that the Claimants did not produce this sale instance before the LAO. In addition, she had refused to rely upon the evidence of the expert/valuer because the valuation undertaken by him was as of 1/9/2006 when the Section 4 notification was admittedly issued on 31/7/2006. The Reference Court has reasoned that since the valuation was not done as on the date of Section 4 notification, the valuer's report and testimony should be ignored.

7. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, and ors. AIR 1988 SC 1652, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award, and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. So also, the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer. The material he utilized for valuation cannot be used by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in an appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer as if it were an appellate Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the Court must treat the Reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it. In this case, the Reference Court's reasoning is precisely contrary to what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra).

8. Therefore, even if the sale instance dated 29/6/2006 were to have been produce