Judgment A.P. Lavande, J. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 6.9.2002, passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Panaji in land acquisition case No. 147/96, by which the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent from Rs.12/- to Rs.100/- per sq. metre. 2. By Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter. referred to as "the Act"), published in Official Gazette dated 23.9.1991, the Government acquired 1,58,781 sq. metres of land for the purpose of new Broad Guage railway line for Konkan Railway Project. An area of 975 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 194 of the said village belonging to the respondents was acquired. On 7.3.1994, the Land Acquisition Officer, declared the award and fixed the compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.12/- sq. metre. Dissatisfied with the same, the respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. metre. In the said reference, the applicants examined Loyola Menezes (AW 1) Prazeres Gonsalves (AW 2) and Edgar Silveira (AW 3). The respondents in the said reference examined Anup Pednekar (RW 1), and Manguesh Shripad Deshpande (RW 2). The Reference Court held that the plot of land which was the subject-matter of the sale deed dated 5.11.1985, which was produced by the applicants, was situated at a distance of about 1.2 kms. from the acquired land and also found that the acquired land as well as the land of the said sale deed were similar type of lands. The Reference Court accepted the said sale deed as the basis for enhancing the compensation. The Reference Court considering that the sale deed was 6 years prior to the Notification. held that the applicant were entitled to increase at the rate of 10% per annum and since the land admeasured only 975 sq. metres from Survey No. 194 for which there were two owners, fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre. 3. Mr. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents have not proved that the acquired land and the hand in the said sale deed are similar and that the acquired land was a part of protected land under the Goa, Daman and Diu Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1978. metre. 3. Mr. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents have not proved that the acquired land and the hand in the said sale deed are similar and that the acquired land was a part of protected land under the Goa, Daman and Diu Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1978. The learned counsel further submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon sale deed dated 5.11.1985 for the purpose of fixing the compensation in the present case. 4. Mr. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that no interference is called for by this Court in the appeal preferred by the appellants. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Division bench of this Court dated 28th September, 2003 in First Appeal No. 20/2003, Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. Mariano Caetano Clarimundo F.J. De Piedade Menez, Mr. Diniz submitted that in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 194 (part) of Malar Village, this Court has awarded Rs.81/- per sq. metre, after considering the similar objections raised on behalf of the appellants in the said appeal. The learned counsel further submitted that the Division Bench of this Court having granted compensated at the rate of Rs.81/- per sq. metre in respect of a part of the land bearing, the same survey number, the respondents are not only entitled to the same rate, but at a higher rate i.e. Rs.100/- as awarded by the Reference Court, since a small portion of the property bearing Survey No. 194 has been acquired, Mr. Diniz further submitted that in First Appeal No. 20/03, the Notification was the same and, as such, in any event, there is no question of giving less compensation than the one given by the this Court in FA No. 20/03. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also gone through the records and the evidence led by both sides. For the reasons stated hereinafter, it is not necessary for me to discuss, in detail, the evidence led by both the parties before the Reference Court. 6. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. I have also gone through the records and the evidence led by both sides. For the reasons stated hereinafter, it is not necessary for me to discuss, in detail, the evidence led by both the parties before the Reference Court. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 28.9.2004, rendered in FA No. 20/03, after considering the evidence led by the parties, relied upon the sale deed dated 5.11.1985, which has also been relied upon by the respondents in the present case. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.8.2004, passed in First Appeal No. 21/2000, fixed the compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.81/- per sq. metre. In First Appeal No. 20/2003, the Division Bench held that the land in sale deed dated 5.11.1985 could be the basis for fixation of the market value of the land acquired in the case and fixed the compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of 81/- per sq. metre. In the said judgment, this Court placed reliance on three judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mst. Saiyadan. AIR 1994 SC 1160 ; Union of India v. Shri Dhyan Singh and others, 2000 AIR SCW 4936 and Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 4382 and placing reliance on the said judgment of the Apex Court, held that once compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings, the rate fixed in earlier proceedings would be the appropriate compensation in respect of the land acquired. 7. Admittedly, the land acquired in the present case and the land which was the subject-matter in First Appeal No. 20/03 have been acquired pursuant to the same Notification; both the lands are parts of the same survey number and. Therefore, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove, the respondents are entitled to the compensation at the same rate fixed by this Court in FA No. 20/2003. However, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Therefore, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove, the respondents are entitled to the compensation at the same rate fixed by this Court in FA No. 20/2003. However, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Diniz that since the land acquired is a small portion of land, the respondents are entitled to higher compensation. By the Notification which was published on 23.9.1991, large tracts of land including the land of the respondents was acquired and, therefore, the mere fact that a small portion of the respondents land was acquired by the said Notification, would not entitle the respondents higher compensation. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Diniz that the respondents are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre, which is the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, I am also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Afonso that the acquired land cannot be compared to the land in the sale deed dated 5.11.1985 and further that the acquired land falls within the prohibited area. Similar contentions were also advanced by the appellants herein in the First Appeal No. 20/23 which have been rejected by the Division Bench and for the same reasons, I am also unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed. The compensation in respect of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.81/- per sq. metre. Needless to mention that the respondents are entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. The parties to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed.