JUDGMENT A.S. OKA, J. This First Appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 2nd August, 2002, passed by the learned District Judge, in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the said Act of 1894). 2. The date of notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 is 19th April, 1991. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was made on 19th April, 1993. The acquisition relates to land bearing survey No.201/1 admeasuring 2315 square metres at Village Curchorem. The Land Acquisition Officer by the Award dated 19th April, 1993, fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.57/- per square metre for area of 1665 square metres which was a bharad land. He fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.23/- per square metre for remaining area of 650 square metres of paddy land. The Land Acquisition Officer directed that Rs.0.40 paise per square metre should be paid in equal shares to the co-owners mentioned in the Award. 3. By the impugned Judgment and Award, a reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 made at the instance of the appellants has been dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error by invoking Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulations) Act, 1991, (for short, the said Act of 1991), inasmuch as substantial part of the acquired land was a bharad land and only a small area was a paddy land. He invited our attention to the Judgment and Order dated 20th August, 2002 of the Mamlatdar. He pointed out that the claim of tenancy by the tenants was made only in respect of a part of land bearing survey No.201/1 though in the operative part of the order, a declaration of tenancy has been granted in respect of the entire land. He submitted that in fact the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award under the said Act of 1894 has recorded that only an area of 650 square metres is a paddy land and rest of the area constitutes bharad land. He submitted that Section 2 of the said Act of 1991 will have no application as far as bharad land is concerned. He submitted that Section 2 of the said Act of 1991 will have no application as far as bharad land is concerned. He also invited our attention to the evidence adduced by the appellants in the form of Sale Deed at exhibit 19 as well as the report and evidence of the expert valuer. He submitted that the learned District Judge has committed an error by holding that the land subject matter at Sale Deed at exhibit 19, cannot be compared with the acquired land as the land subject matter of the Sale Deed, was already a developed land. He submitted that at the highest, the learned Judge could have made suitable deductions on account of development charges. The Sale Deed could not have been discarded as a piece of evidence. He submitted that there was no reason for discarding the evidence of the expert witness. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents supported the impugned Judgment and Award. 5. The first question to be decided is as to whether only a part of the acquired land was a tenanted land. It is not in dispute that the Judgment and Order of the Mamlatdar in case No.TNC/2/93, has attained finality in the sense that the appeal preferred by the appellants against the said decision was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Mamlatdar has admittedly declared the applicants before him as tenants in respect of the entire acquired land and the said Order has attained finality. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1964), the reference Court had no jurisdiction to go to the merits of the claim regarding the tenancy as the Mamlatdar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said issue. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants tried to submit that before the date of acquisition, the purchase price was not fixed. The said submission is of no help to the appellants in view of sub-section (1) of Section 18A of the said Act of 1964. By the said provision, the vesting of the land was already completed on the date of which the acquisition proceeding was initiated. 7. In the circumstances, Section 2 of the said Act of 1991, was squarely applicable to the acquired land which prohibits use of the land for any purpose other than agriculture. By the said provision, the vesting of the land was already completed on the date of which the acquisition proceeding was initiated. 7. In the circumstances, Section 2 of the said Act of 1991, was squarely applicable to the acquired land which prohibits use of the land for any purpose other than agriculture. 8. Reliance was placed by the expert examined by the appellants only on one sale instance which is exhibit 19, which was produced and proved before the Court. The land subject matter of exhibit 19 was already a developed land on the date of sale. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the acquired land can be compared with the land subject matter of the document at exhibit 19 inasmuch as there is conclusive declaration in respect of tenancy of the entire acquired land. 9. The appellants being claimants in the reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894, were in the position of a Plaintiff. The burden was on them to prove that compensation offered under the award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894, was adequate. The only evidence adduced was in the form at document exhibit 19, which has been rightly discarded by the learned District Judge. 10. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.