The Reference under the Land Acquisition Act is an original proceeding, and the Court must determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. V.R. Tamba for the Appellant-Claimant and Ms. Susan Linhares and Ms. Sulekha Kamat for the Respondent-State.

2. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 29/2/2016 in Land Acquisition Case No. 33/2013, by which the Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the acquired land from ? 150/- per sq. meter to ? 300/- per sq. meter.

3. The Appellants in First Appeal No.73/2016 are aggrieved by the impugned Award because the Reference Court did not grant them the rate of ?3800/- per sq. meter. On the other hand, the impugned Award aggrieves the State because the Reference Court has doubled the rate determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, 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 2625 sq. meters of survey No.59/1-A of Village Chimbel, Tiswadi Taluka was proposed to be acquired for Ribandar Bye-pass. The Land Acquisition Officer, by the Award dated 17/8/2009, determined the rate of ?150/- per sq. meter. However, by the impugned Award, the Reference Court has enhanced this rate to ? 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 Land Acquisition Officer 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 equally cursory Award, the Reference Court has disposed of the Reference. She has refused to rely upon the sale instance at Exhibit-C-14 dated 17/7/2006 on the specious plea that the Claimants did not produce this sale instance before the Land Acquisition Officer. In addition, she had refused to rely upon the evidence of the expert/valuer because this expert stated that the Claimants approached him in August 2006 (the date of inspection of the acquired land by the expert/valuer was 20/8/2006) when Section 4 notification was issued on 31/7/2006.

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 has to treat the Reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh based on the material produced before it. The reasoning of the Reference Court, in this case, 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 at Exhibit C-14 were to have been produced before the Land Acquisition Officer, the Claimants would not be entitled to rely upon the same unless the same was produced before the Reference Court and proved in accord with the law. Accordingly,