Judgment Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeals No.20/2007, 21/2007 and 180/2007, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No.178/2007, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. All the above appeals were taken up together for final hearing and disposal taking note of the fact that all the Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the issues involved in all the above appeals are similar and, as such, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in all the above appeals, land belonging to the appellants was notified by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 on 16/03/1992 restricting the user of such land under Section 7(b) of the said Act in the village of Chicalim of Mormugao Taluka. The appellants in all the above appeals having interest in such lands and were owners in possession of such property were affected by the said notification issued by the Government of India. It is further the contention of the appellants that the land which is subject matter of the said notification belonging to them was falling within the settlement zone. The competent Authority by an award dated 16/03/2001 granted one time compensation of Rs.1.40/-per square metre for the land belonging to the appellants towards the restrictions imposed for the user and enjoyment of the said land. The appellants preferred an application before the Collector of South Goa under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act for enhancement of compensation by application filed on 3/05/2001. The Collector made a reference to the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao on 4/02/2002. The references filed by the appellants were registered as Land Acquisition Case No.36/2002, Land Acquisition Case No.62/2003, Land Acquisition Case No.56/2003 and Land Acquisition Case No.66/2003. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties the learned District Judge by judgment and award dated 31/01/2007 rejected the reference filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants preferred the above appeals. 4. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties the learned District Judge by judgment and award dated 31/01/2007 rejected the reference filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants preferred the above appeals. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Reference Court has failed to assess the compensation towards the restrictions imposed in the enjoyment of the property of the appellants without applying the well settled principles of law applicable in such cases, when the appellants have adduced sufficient material on record to establish that the appellants were entitled for enhancement of compensation, as the land belonging to the appellants was located in the settlement zone and they have been deprived of just user and enjoyment of such property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there was sufficient material on record for the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to the compensation as prayed for by the appellants and Reference Court on irrelevant consideration has passed the impugned awards. The learned Counsel have also brought to my notice the judgments passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.65/2003, dated 10/08/2006 wherein the land belonging to another interested party affected with similar restrictions pursuant to the same notification was awarded compensation on account of such restrictions at the rate of Rs.71/-per square metre. The subject matter of the land therein was the property surveyed under no.151/1 (part) admeasuring an area of 8800 square metres. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the land belonging to the appellants is much superior to the land which is the subject matter of the said proceedings. The learned Counsel have also brought to my notice another judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.39/2003 wherein the Reference Court has fixed the compensation towards same restrictions which are also the subject matter of the same notification at the rate of Rs.71/-per square metre by an award dated 10/08/2006 in respect of the land surveyed under no.151/2 (part) admeasuring an area of 8300 square metres. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective appellants have pointed out that the land belonging to the appellants is much superior to the lands which are subject matter of the said proceedings and, as such, according to them the appellants are entitled to much higher compensation than the one awarded in the said proceedings. 5. On the other hand, Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has supported the impugned judgments. The learned Counsel pointed out that the appellants have failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the land which was subject matter of the said cases which were disposed of by the Reference Court referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants were much superior to the lands which were subject matter of the above appeal. The learned Counsel further pointed out that unless and until the comparability and/or merits and demerits of the lands which are subject matter of the present appeals are established with the said lands the question of relying upon the said awards for fixing the compensation in the present case would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in case this Court remands the matter for fresh consideration liberty may be given to the respondents to lead evidence in support of their contention. 6. Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 has submitted to the orders of this Court. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the records and the impugned judgments. Taking note of the fact that the lands which were subject to same restrictions pursuant to the same notification have been awarded a sum of Rs.71/-per square metre, I find that the Reference Court was not justified to reject the reference filed by the appellants. Whether the land which is subject matter of the present appeals and the land which was subject matter of the said two awards are superior and of inferior quality as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties is a matter which the learned Judge has to adjudicate upon appreciating the evidence on record or after the parties are given an opportunity to lead such evidence. In the interest of justice and taking over all facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that it is well settled that an award passed in respect of lands of the same notification can form the basis for fixing the compensation, I find it appropriate that the impugned judgments passed by the Reference Court be quashed and set aside and the land acquisition cases of the respective appellants be restored to the file of the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned judgment dated 29/12/2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.36/2002, the impugned judgment dated 5/10/2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.62/2003, the impugned judgment dated 31/01/2007 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.56/2003 and the impugned judgment dated 31/01/2007 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.66/2003 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The Land Acquisition Case No.36/2002, Land Acquisition Case No.62/2003, Land Acquisition Case No.56/2003 and Land Acquisition Case No.66/2003 be restored to the file of the Reference Court. (iii) The Reference Court is directed to decide the said Land Acquisition Cases afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is given to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions if they so desire. (v) All contentions of the parties are left open. (vi) All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (vii) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 8/10/2012 at 10.00 a.m.