Judgment Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. None for the other Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.11.2006, whereby a reference preferred by the Appellants under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'), came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 10.09.2003, land belonging to the Appellant admeasuring an area of 2500 square metres from the property bearing P. T. Sheet no. 16, Chalta no. 8, Subdivision 4 of Margao City, was acquired for the purpose of constructing a school complex. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.04.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer, offered a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/-per square metre besides a sum of Rs.13,400/-for the well located in the said property. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per square metre besides a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards the well and a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-on account of loss of income from the acquired land. After framing the issues and recording of evidence, the Reference Court by the impugned Judgment dated 29.11.2006, dismissed the reference preferred by the Appellant. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 6. Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment essentially on the ground that the Reference Court has not at all appreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellant has failed to establish that she is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land acquired was located in the outskirts of the commercial city of Margao and further that though the land was tenanted, nevertheless, such land was fertile in nature. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in another land acquisition proceedings preferred by one Joao Miranda and others, the Division Bench of this Court whilst disposing of the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 and the said claimant in First Appeal no. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in another land acquisition proceedings preferred by one Joao Miranda and others, the Division Bench of this Court whilst disposing of the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 and the said claimant in First Appeal no. 215/2007 and First Appeal no. 293/2007, by Judgment dated 21.07.2010, enhanced the compensation for the land acquired therein at the rate of Rs.55/-per square metre. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition and the land which was subject matter of the said acquisition in First Appeal no. 215/2007 were acquired for the same purpose pursuant to the same Notification and both the lands were tenanted having similar potentialities and advantages. Learned Counsel as such submits that the Appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.55/-per square metre. 7. On the other hand, Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1, accepts that the land which was subject matter of the present proceedings and the land which was subject matter of the First Appeal no. 215/2007 were acquired pursuant to the same Notification and had similar advantages and disadvantages. But, however, the learned Counsel pointed out that the land in the present case was at a lower level and was uneven and, as such, some deductions is to be given on that count. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the said differences, the compensation for the land acquired in the present Appeal be fixed at the rate of Rs.50/-per square metres. 8. Having hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the Reference Court was justified to reject the reference filed by the Appellant. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the land acquired in the present case and the land acquired in the First Appeal were pursuant to the same Notification for the same purpose. Both the lands were tenanted lands. Considering the said aspect, there is no bar to take the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal no. 215/2007as the basis for fixing the compensation for the land acquired herein. Both the lands were tenanted lands. Considering the said aspect, there is no bar to take the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal no. 215/2007as the basis for fixing the compensation for the land acquired herein. Hence, for the reasons stated in the said Judgment dated 21.07.2010 of the learned Division Bench, the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. The learned Reference Court as such was not justified to reject the reference preferred by the Appellants. 10. Taking into consideration the de-merits pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, I find it appropriate that the compensation in the present case be fixed at the rate of Rs.50/-per square metre. This amount has to be fixed taking note of the contention of Shri Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 and in view of the fact that it is not in dispute that the land in the present case and the land subject matter in the First Appeal, had similar features. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. With regard to the remaining claim put forward by the Appellants, no submissions have been advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants to claim any compensation for the loss of profits and/or loss or enhancement of compensation for the well located in the acquired land. 12. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 29.11.2006 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Appellants are entitled for compensation for the land acquired admeasuring 2500 square metres, at the rate of Rs.50/-per square metre. (iii) Needless to say, the Appellants would be entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) and 23(2) and Section 28 of the said Act in accordance with law. (iv) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs.