Judgment : This appeal by the expropriated land owners is against the Judgment of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margaoin Land Acquisition Case No. 17/1991 dated 27th August, 2001. The Government acquired a portion of land admeasuring 1240 sq. metres, situated at Malbhat, Margao for the purpose of construction of a road at Malbhat. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35/-per sq. metre. The expropriated land owners accepted the amount under protest and claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.700/- per sq. metre. In the reference, certain changes occurred in the array of the land owners, which are not strictly relevant for the purpose of the decision in this appeal. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs.35/- per sq. metre to Rs.50/-per sq. metre. This was done on the basis of the compensation awarded in the case of the acquisition of land of one Angle under the same notification and acquisition. 2. Ms. Razaq, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's land and one Angle's lands were acquired under the same notification and the reference Court has committed an error by giving the same compensation of Rs.50/-per sq. metre that was given to Angle. According to the learned Counsel Angle was wrongly given Rs.50/-for land outside his compound wall, though he was rightly given Rs.100 for land within his compound wall. The learned Counsel submitted that there is no appreciable difference in the land situated outside the compound wall and the land situated within the compound wall and, therefore, the comparison of the appellant's case with that of Angle is not proper. 3. The correctness of the award in Angle's case is not in question here. What is material is that for the acquisition of identical property under the same notification, Angle was given compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per sq. metre. That Award cannot be found fault with by side wind in this matter. As a matter of fact, the appellant's land and Angle's lands were acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. The appellant's land is a strip of land approximately 6 X 200 metres. Identical land of Angle was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per sq. metre. That some other land of his may have been awarded a higher rate, is of no consequence. The appellant's land is a strip of land approximately 6 X 200 metres. Identical land of Angle was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per sq. metre. That some other land of his may have been awarded a higher rate, is of no consequence. It is settled law that only acquisition of similar lands is comparable. In these circumstances, there appears to be no error in the Judgment of the learned District Judge. 4. At one stage Ms. Razaq, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the appellant described the land acquired as footpath, it is not a footpath and is much wider than a footpath. May be the contention of the learned Counsel is correct that mere description of the land ought not to weigh while considering the grant of compensation. However, one finds in the present case that going by the measurements of the land, which is a strip of 6 x 200 metres even if it is not a footpath, it is a road of same part and in any case the land and Angle's land which received the same amount of compensation, are similar. 5. Mr. Padiyar, learned Counsel for the respondent relied on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.176/2000 and Cross Objection No.11/2000 (State of Goa and anr. vs. Antonio Almeida and ors.) decided on 23rd June, 2004. In this case, in relation to a road, this Court held that the market value to be given to such a land ought to be 20% of the value fetched by the owners to the surrounding or adjacent land. According to Mr. Padiyar, the principle was correctly applied while awarding compensation in Angle's case. It is not necessary to examine the validity or propriety of the Award in Angle's case, since that Award has, admittedly, not been reversed or altered by any Court. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.