Judgment :- F.M. REIS, J. Both the above appeals were taken up together for final hearing as the lands involved therein have been acquired pursuant to the same notification dated 10/11/1980, published in the Official Gazette on 20/11/1980 for the same purpose for the implementation of Housing Scheme at Davorlim, Salcete. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 3. The facts in First Appeal No.331/2003 Pursuant to a notification dated 10/11/1980 published in Official Gazette on 20/11/1980, an area of 39,844 square metres from the property surveyed under no.12/2 belonging to the applicants was intended to be acquired for the implementation of the Housing Scheme at Davorlim, Salcete, Goa. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 25/01/1983, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.5/- and Rs.6/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the applicants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a sum of Rs.150/-per square metre for the land acquired, besides a sum of Rs.75,000/-for the rubble stone wall and for the value of the trees existing therein. The Reference Court after recording of evidence and hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and award dated 24/07/2003 rejected the reference filed by the applicants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants have preferred the present appeal. 4. The facts in First Appeal No.346/2003 Pursuant to the same notification referred to herein above, for the same purpose, land belonging to the applicants was acquired admeasuring an area of 69,600 square metres from the property surveyed under no.95/1 wherein the Land Acquisition Officer has offered a compensation of a sum of Rs.6/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the applicants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.150/- per square metre. By judgment and award dated 31/07/2003, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7/-per square metre with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Submissions in both the appeals: ShriV. By judgment and award dated 31/07/2003, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7/-per square metre with all the statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Submissions in both the appeals: ShriV. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in refusing the enhancement of the compensation as prayed for by the applicants. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the land acquired was at a distance of about 500 metres from the boundary of Margao Municipal Council and had high potentiality of being used for nonagricultural purpose and, as such, question of awarding an illusory compensation of Rs.7/-per square metre is totally unjustified. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land in the vicinity of the acquired land at Gogol was sold for the price of Rs.150/-for developed plot and, as such, the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is totally inadequate. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself and came to an erroneous conclusion that the applicants are not entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed by them. The learned Counsel has brought to our notice that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 26/07/2010 passed in First Appeal No.214/2005 has fixed the compensation in respect of the land acquired for the same purpose by the same notification in respect of an area of 22,308 square metres at the rate of Rs.11/- per square metre and awarded excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the land acquired and the land which was subject matter of the said proceedings were acquired by the same notification and they were both comparable in nature. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the applicants be awarded compensation as awarded by the Division Bench of this Court whilst disposing of the said appeal. 6. On the other hand, Shri Nadkarni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and refused any enhancement of compensation as claimed by the applicants. 6. On the other hand, Shri Nadkarni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and refused any enhancement of compensation as claimed by the applicants. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the Sale Deeds produced by the applicants are not at all comparable with the land acquired and, as such, the Reference Court was justified to discard the said Sale Deed. With regard to the said judgment of the Division Bench, relied upon by the applicants, the learned Senior Counsel did not seriously dispute that the land acquired in the present proceedings and the land which was subject matter of the said acquisition were of the similar nature. The learned Senior Counsel, however, pointed out that on the basis of material on record, the applicants were not entitled for any further enhancement of compensation as determined by the Reference Court. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submitted that both the appeals deserve to be rejected. 7. Consideration of the submissions in both the aforesaid appeals: Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of records, we find that the Reference Court was justified to discard the sale instance produced by the applicants as they were not comparable to the land acquired. The sale instance produced by the applicants are within the municipal limits of Margao city and were developed plots and there was no material on record to substantiate the contention of the applicants that the land in the sale instances produced by them are comparable with the land acquired. As such, we find no hesitation to accept the finding of the Reference Court on that count. But however, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of First Appeal No.214/1005 by judgment dated 26/07/2010 has fixed the compensation of the land acquired therein at the rate of Rs.11/- per square metre. The subject matter of the land which was acquired in the said proceedings was admeasuring an area of 22,308 square metres, pursuant to the same notification for the same purpose and the land was surveyed under no.11/2. The land which was acquired in the above First Appeals are surveyed under numbers 95/1 and 12/2. The subject matter of the land which was acquired in the said proceedings was admeasuring an area of 22,308 square metres, pursuant to the same notification for the same purpose and the land was surveyed under no.11/2. The land which was acquired in the above First Appeals are surveyed under numbers 95/1 and 12/2. The respondents have not seriously disputed that the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition and the lands which were subject matter of the acquisition in the said First Appeals are similar in nature. Apart from that the Land Acquisition Officer while offering the compensation for both the land acquired in the present case as well as for the land which was subject matter of the said First Appeal has offered a sum of Rs.6/- per square metre. This also shows that the lands are similar in nature and have similar potentiality. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to award any different compensation for the land acquired in present proceedings. As far as the land which was subject matter of the First Appeal No.331/2004, the Land Acquisition Officer had offered a sum of Rs.6/-per square metre besides the value of the trees. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the value of the land and the trees, has awarded an excess sum of Rs.4/-per square metre for the land acquired. Accordingly, we find it appropriate that for the same reasons recorded by the Division Bench the applicants herein are awarded an excess sum of Rs.4/-per square metre for the land acquired. 9. With regard to the land which is subject matter of First Appeal No.346/2003, we find that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.6/- per square metre for bharad land and Rs.5/-per square metre for the paddy field portion. While fixing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had also awarded separate compensation for the land and the trees. As such, we find that for the same reasons as recorded in the said judgment of the Division Bench, the applicants would be entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre for the land acquired. 10. While fixing the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer had also awarded separate compensation for the land and the trees. As such, we find that for the same reasons as recorded in the said judgment of the Division Bench, the applicants would be entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/- per square metre for the land acquired. 10. After considering the overall evidence on record, we find that the applicants in both the appeals are entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/-per square metre for the land acquired, besides statutory benefits, for the reasons recorded in the said judgment dated 26/07/2010. It is well settled that normally the lands which are subject matter of the same notification should be awarded similar compensation in cases in which the lands are similar and have same potentiality. The market value of the land should be fair and reasonable considering the price prevailing in the vicinity of the acquired land. As such, we have no hesitation in fixing the market value of the acquired land in the manner stated above on the basis of the judgment passed by the Division Bench referred to herein above. The applicants have failed to establish that they are entitled for any other amounts claimed by them with regard to the value of the structures and the tress existing therein, nor any submissions were advanced with that regard. The learned Reference Court was not justified to refuse the reference filed by the appellants in First Appeal No.331/2003 and partly allow the reference of the appellants in First Appeal No.346/2003. 11. In view of the above, we pass the following order: ORDER (i) Both the appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award date 24/07/2003 passed in First Appeal No.331/2003 is quashed and set aside and the applicants are held entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/-per square metre for the land acquired along with statutory benefits as per the provisions of Section 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act in accordance with law. (iii) The impugned judgment and award dated 31/07/2003 passed in First Appeal No.346/2003 is modified and the applicants are held entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/-per square metre for the land acquired along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act, in accordance with law. (iii) The impugned judgment and award dated 31/07/2003 passed in First Appeal No.346/2003 is modified and the applicants are held entitled for an excess amount of Rs.4/-per square metre for the land acquired along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the said Act, in accordance with law. (iv) The Reference Court is directed to calculate the amount payable to the applicants by the respondents in accordance with the determination of the market value as stated hereinabove within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (v) The respondents are directed to deposit such excess amount as determined within three months from the date of such determination by the Reference Court. (vi) Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.