Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These four appeals are preferred against judgment of the reference Court by which the reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation of Rs. 25/- per Sq. Mtr. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 95/- per Sq. Mtr. The acquired lands, which are the subject matter of these appeals, are similarly situated. The portion acquired are sand strips of lands between beach and the mainland. There is no dispute that, in all cases, the acquired lands are contiguous to the lands of the expropriated land owners and in which the land owners are doing business. The lands involved in these First Appeals are as follows: (i) First Appeal No. 149/2002:- Land admeasuring 475 Sq. Mtr. Survey No. 146/3/B (Part) (ii) First Appeal No. 167/2002:- Land admeasuring 525 Sq. Mtr., Survey No. 146/3/A (Part) (iii) First Appeal No. 168/2002:- Land admeasuring 2125 Sq. Mtr., Survey No. 148/5 (Part) (iv) First Appeal No. 220/2002:- Land admeasuring 450 Sq. Mtr., Survey No. 146/1. All the lands were acquired under a common Notification dated 02.09.1991. The reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 95/- per sq. mtr. on the basis of location of the land on the beach front and its proximity to several important properties. Further, the reference Court relied on the compensation awarded to the respondents themselves when any other piece of their property were acquired in the month of November-1979. The reference Court observed that the present land was acquired under a Notification dated 02.09.1991, after a period of about 11 years and 10 months, observing that the acquired land is situated in Candolim area, where tourism has increased and the prices have increased at a rapid rate. However, the court took into account a modest rise in the price of the lands at the rate of Rs. 5/- per Sq. Mtr. per year and worked it out to Rs. 60/-per sq. mtr. over the past 12 years. Thus, adding this amount to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 95/- per Sq. Mtr. It may be mentioned here that in First Appeal No. 220/2002, the reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 110/- per Sq. Mtr. mtr. over the past 12 years. Thus, adding this amount to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 95/- per Sq. Mtr. It may be mentioned here that in First Appeal No. 220/2002, the reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 110/- per Sq. Mtr. since the compensation awarded to the respondents for acquisition of his land in the year 1979 was Rs. 50/-per Sq. Mtr. 3. The main contention of Mr. Bandodkar, the learned A. G. A. for the appellant, is that the reference Court ought not to have awarded any increase in the compensation over the years since the Notification for Costal Regulation Zone (CRZ) was brought into effect on 20.02.1991 and the lands in question fell into the “No Development Zone” under the CRZ. There is no dispute about the fact that these lands are in the “No Development Zone” of the CRZ. The question is, whether no increase in value can be attributed at all to the lands because they are covered by the CRZ. 4. Mr. Sardessai, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the lands cannot be treated as having no value merely because they happen to fall in the No Development Zone. According to the learned counsel, in each of these cases, lands adjacent to the acquired lands also belong to the respondents, though in one case there is a Panchayat road in between. The respondents are doing business in the adjacent lands and the acquired lands, in fact, offer a frontage to the lands in which the respondents are doing business. Therefore, the acquired lands should be treated as having undoubted value because even if they fell into No Development Zone, these acquired lands could have, admittedly, been used by the respondents for the business purposes such as putting up temporary shacks and beach beds, which are permitted by law in such areas and, in fact, are in great demand on beach fronts. 6. Mr. Bandodkar, the learned A. G. A. for the appellants, fairly accepted that it has come in the evidence of the Government witness that temporary shacks etc. could have been put up by the respondents in the acquired lands. 6. Mr. Bandodkar, the learned A. G. A. for the appellants, fairly accepted that it has come in the evidence of the Government witness that temporary shacks etc. could have been put up by the respondents in the acquired lands. There is thus, no reason to doubt the claim of the respondents that the acquired lands cannot be said to have lost value because of the enactment of the CRZ in the area. It appears that the lands clearly retain the value they had and it cannot be said that the learned District Judge has committed any error in enhancing the value of the lands by a modest price rise at the rate of Rs. 5/- per year. 7. Mr. Sardessai, the learned counsel for the respondents, has rightly relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in a case which arose in Goa, State of Goa and another ..vs.. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases686, where the Supreme Court considered the value of the land along side and adjoining the highway on which construction was prohibited up to depth of 40 Mtrs. from the centre of the highway. The Supreme Court observed as follows: “5. The contention that a land adjoining the highway should be treated as having no development potential (and therefore as land without much value except as ordinary agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to extend beyond the 40 m margin) as having potential for development, is illogical and cannot be accepted. 6. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example of a residential plot of land measuring 60' x 100'. Let us assume that the municipal bye-laws require a front (roadside) setback of 20' for construction of houses in a plot of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty feet wide front strip in the said plot free of any construction while putting up the construction in the plot. Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front strip on the ground that the said 20' strip acquired for road widening could not in any event be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not of any value? Obviously not. 7. Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front strip on the ground that the said 20' strip acquired for road widening could not in any event be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not of any value? Obviously not. 7. Therefore, determination of market value of the acquired land with reference to the value of comparable land cannot be faulted.” The ratio of that decision applies to lands falling in the no development zone of the CRZ. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.