Judgment : 1. The present appeal is filed against judgment and award dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, South Goa, Margao (“Reference Court” for short), in Land Acquisition Case No. 400/1995. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition case. 3. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:- Vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) in the Official Gazette dated 24.10.1991, land was acquired from Cortalim village of Mormugao Taluka for the construction of new broad gauge line for Konkan railway. This included land admeasuring 1170 square metres from survey no.173/9 which was claimed by the original applicant as owner thereof. By award dated 24.1.1995, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/-per square metre for the said acquired land, besides value of trees therein. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation offered by the L.A.O., the original applicant filed application under Section 18 of the Act before the L.A.O. which gave rise to the said reference registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 400/95. 5. The original applicant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/-per square metre for the acquired land. She alleged that the L.A.O. did not consider the potentialities of the acquired land which was abutting the existing road and in level with the same. She further claimed compensation of Rs. 4000/-for one “Bhendi” tree and Rs. 3500/-for one “Caro” tree. According to the original applicant, the area of her property was 1175 square metres and that entire area was acquired. She, therefore, claimed enhanced of compensation for an area of 1175 square metres. 6. The original applicant died on 15.10.1993. However, the matter proceeded before the Reference Court without bringing her legal representatives on record. One Vincente Francisco Menezes, the son and the sole heir of the original applicant examined himself as AW1 and a Civil Engineer/valuer by name Ernesto Moniz as AW2. The respondents did not examine any witness. 7. By judgment and award dated 30.8.2001, the learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.134/-per square metre to the acquired land admeasuring 1170 square metres and also granted all the statutory benefits to the original applicant. 8. The respondents did not examine any witness. 7. By judgment and award dated 30.8.2001, the learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.134/-per square metre to the acquired land admeasuring 1170 square metres and also granted all the statutory benefits to the original applicant. 8. The respondents preferred First Appeal No. 77/2002 against the judgment and award dated 30.8.2001 and by order dated 29.10.2004, this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment/award since it was found that the legal representatives of the original applicant were not brought on record. The matter was remanded to the Reference Court for deciding the same on its own merits, after bringing legal representatives of the original applicant on record. 9. Thereafter, the sole legal representative of the applicant(AW1) filed the application for bringing him on record and by order dated 30.6.2005, the same was allowed. 10. Subsequent thereto, the said legal representative moved an application for amendment of the reference application, which was allowed and as per the amended application the applicant had claimed Rs.134/-per square metre as compensation for the acquired land as against Rs.50/-per square metre as claimed in the original application. 11. In his further examination-in-chief, AW1 produced additional document being the award dated 30.8.2001 passed by the District Court, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case no. 398/1995. The respondents did not lead any evidence. 12. Upon analysis of the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2005 relied upon the judgment of the District Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 and held that market value of the acquired land was Rs.134/-per square metre. All statutory benefits were granted to the applicant and costs of Rs. 1000/-were also awarded. 13. The present appeal has been filed against the said judgment and award dated 20.10.2005. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and award is solely based on the judgment and award of the District Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 in which compensation at the rate of Rs. 134/-per square metre was awarded. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and award is solely based on the judgment and award of the District Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 in which compensation at the rate of Rs. 134/-per square metre was awarded. He submitted that against the said judgment and award, the respondents had preferred First Appeal No. 9/2002 before this Court and this Court by Judgment dated 15.10.2010 has set aside the said judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 and has dismissed the reference made by the claimant in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995. 15. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the valuation report prepared by AW2 was rightly discarded by the Reference Court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in “State of Goa V/s Desiderio Menezes” [1996(1) Goa L.T. 12], since the inspection was held by AW2 in the year 1998 and valuation report was also prepared in the year 1998 which is almost after seven years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He further pointed out from the judgment dated 15.10.2010 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 9/2002 that both the sale deeds which are relied upon by the present applicant were also relied upon by the applicant of Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 and that this Court has specifically held that the said sale deeds cannot be said to be of comparable land. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that since there is no other material produced by the applicant, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside and reference be dismissed. 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that there was absolutely no justification for grant of negligible rate of Rs. 4/-per square metre to the acquired land which falls in settlement zone and had all the facilities and amenities, at the relevant time, as duly proved by the evidence on record. According to learned counsel, even if the valuation report prepared by AW2 cannot be considered for valuation of the land, however it can be looked into for knowing the nature of the acquired land and its proximity from various amenities and sale deed plots. According to learned counsel, even if the valuation report prepared by AW2 cannot be considered for valuation of the land, however it can be looked into for knowing the nature of the acquired land and its proximity from various amenities and sale deed plots. He further submitted that even if the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 is discarded on account of the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 9/2002, however there is ample material on record viz two sale deeds which are respectively at exhibit AW1/C and exhibit AW1/D and an award of the L.A.O. in Case No. 99/43/L.A/85-86, which is at exhibit AW1/B. 17. Learned Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, further submitted that the evidence of AW1 reveals that nature of the sale deed plots is similar to that of the acquired land and both were in close proximity. He, therefore, urged that by considering the positive and negative factors, the market value of the acquired land be fixed by taking into consideration the said sale deeds. He submitted that when the applicant has been able to show that the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. was inadequate, the onus had shifted on the respondents to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the award. He submitted that the respondents have not examined any witness. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments: i. Viluben Jhalejar Contractor(Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat;[ (2005) 4 SCC 789 ] ii. Nelson Fernandes & Ors Vs. Spl. L.A.O., South Goa & Ors; [2007 AIR SCW 1782] iii. Avinash Dhavaji Naik Vs State of Maharashtra; [ (2009) 11 SCC 171 ] iv. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and another Vs. Madhubai Gobarbhai and another;[ (2009) 15 SCC 125 ] v. Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra;[ AIR 2009 SC 2238 ] vi. Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Vs. Union of India; [ AIR 2010 SC 1272 ] vii. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. M. K. Rafiq Saheb; [ AIR 2011 SC 3178 ] viii. Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T. N. H. Board; [ AIR 2011 SC 54 ] 19. I have carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to the material on record and the judgments relied upon. 20. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. M. K. Rafiq Saheb; [ AIR 2011 SC 3178 ] viii. Radha Mudaliyar Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), T. N. H. Board; [ AIR 2011 SC 54 ] 19. I have carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to the material on record and the judgments relied upon. 20. The point that arises for consideration is whether the applicant has proved that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.134/-per square metre as on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or that the market value offered by the L.A.O. is inadequate. 21. From the impugned judgment and award, it is clearly seen that the learned counsel, appearing before the Reference Court, on behalf of the applicant, had solely relied upon the judgment of the District Court in Land Acquisition Case no. 398/1995. It is seen that the Reference Court has also relied upon only the judgment and award dated 30.8.2001 in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 which pertains to the land covered by the same notification as in the present case. Therefore, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 134/-per square metre was awarded by the Reference Court. 22. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the respondents produced before this Court the copy of the judgment dated 15.10.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 9/2002 filed against the said judgment and award dated 30.8.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in said Land Acquisition Case no. 398/1995. Vide the said oral judgment dated 15.10.2010, the learned Single judge of this Court has set aside the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case no. 398/1995 and has dismissed the reference made by the claimant in the said Land Acquisition Case. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award solely passed on the basis of judgment in Land Acquisition Case no. 398/1995 cannot sustain. 23. In the case of “Viluben Jhalejar” (supra), the principles for determination of market value and the relevant factors to be considered have been stated. It has been held that comparable instances of sale of lands which have proximity from time angle as well as situation angle, can be considered and suitable adjustments can be made having regard to various positive and negative factors. It has been held that comparable instances of sale of lands which have proximity from time angle as well as situation angle, can be considered and suitable adjustments can be made having regard to various positive and negative factors. It has been further held that in case of acquisition of a large area for a specific purpose, deuctionscan be made by way of development charges and also deductions can be made for largeness of the land. The positive and negative factors have also been stated in paragraph 20 of the said judgment. In the case of “Madhubai Gobarbhai” (supra), the principles stated in “Viluben Jhalejar” (supra) have been reiterated. 24. In the case of “Nelson Fernandes”(supra), it has been held that since the land was acquired for construction of railway line, question of development of said land does not arise. It has been further held that rejection of valuation by Government approved valuer, an expert in the field, on the ground that it was not based on any method of valuation but solely on basis of facilities available to the land was illegal being not supported by reasons. In the case of “Avinash Naik” ( supra), the Apex Court has stated the factors which are relevant for determining compensation. It has been held that nature of crop, average annual yield, availability of irrigation facilities, etc. were relevant factors which the State should have brought on record to enable the Reference Court to assess the compensation correctly. It has been held that the fact that the land, though agricultural , was being acquired for development of a Town like New Bombay was also relevant. 25. In the case of “Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar” (supra), it has been held that burden of proving true market value of the acquired property is on the State that has acquired it for the particular purpose. It has been held that where land owner is able to show by testimony and valuation report of the expert valuer that the award of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the onus shifts on the State to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain the award. In the case of “Thakur Kuldeep Singh” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Judge should consider what as willing buyer he would offer for acquired land. 26. In the case of “Thakur Kuldeep Singh” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Judge should consider what as willing buyer he would offer for acquired land. 26. In the case of “M. K. Rafiq Saheb” (supra), it has been held that where large tract of land has been acquired and sale instances of smallar pieces of land have been produced, the same can be relied upon in certain circumstances by making appropriate deductions. In the case of “Radha Mudaliyar”(supra), the Apex Court has held that the comparable sale instances can be taken as basis for determination of compensation by making deductions towards development charges. 27. There can be absolutely no quarrel about the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, in my considered view, even after taking into consideration the said principles, the applicant cannot be said to have proved the market value of the acquired land. 28. The award dated 28.2.1989 in case no. 99/43/L.A./85-86 produced by the applicant as exhibit AW1/B pertains to the land which is situated at a distance of 5 to 6 kms away from the acquired land. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette dated 13/2/1986 i.e. more than 5 years prior to that published in respect of the land with which we are concerned in this case. The applicant has also not produced any cogent evidence on the similarity of the nature of the acquired land as compared to the land of the said award. 29. AW1 in his cross examination has deposed that prior to the preparation of the valuation report he had gone along with Ernesto Moniz to the acquired land and also to the other sale deed plots in the year 1998. The valuation report prepared by AW2 is dated 28.7.1998. The relevant date for determination of market value of the acquired land is 24.10.1991. Hence, the valuer had visited the acquired land and had prepared the valuation report after almost 6 years from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Reference Court has rightly discarded the said valuation report by relying upon the judgment of this Court in “Desidorio Menezes” (supra). No credence can be given to such belated valuation report. 30. The applicant has relied upon the two sale deeds. The Reference Court has rightly discarded the said valuation report by relying upon the judgment of this Court in “Desidorio Menezes” (supra). No credence can be given to such belated valuation report. 30. The applicant has relied upon the two sale deeds. One is dated 1.10.1986 which is registered in the office of Civil cum Sub-Registrar, Mormugao under No. 128. By this sale deed, plots admeasuring 200 square metres from survey no. 139/10 and 125square metres from survey no. 139/11 of Cortalim Village, which plots were bounded on one side by NH17-A were sold for Rs. 30,875/-i.e at the rate of Rs. 95/-per square metre. Another sale deed dated 23.4.1991 is at exhibit AW1/B and this pertains to a plot only admeasuring 325 square metres which was sold for Rs. 65,000/-i.e. at the rate of Rs. 200/-per square metre. These sale deed plots are 3 kilometres away from the acquired land. Though AW1 stated that the nature of the sale deed plots is similar to that of the acquired land, however he did not state as to what exactly was the nature of the sale deed plots. 31. Be that as it may, the applicant had produced the award dated 30.8.2001 in Land Acquisition Case No. 398/1995 by specifically stating that the land which was subject matter of the said award was acquired under the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act and that the said land was only about 500 metres away from the acquired land and further that the acquired land as well as land of the said award were suitable for constructing buildings. In the judgment dated 15.10.2010, passed in First Appeal No. 9/2002, the learned Single Judge of this Court has considered both the said sale deeds which have been relied upon by the applicant in the present case and has held that said sale deeds cannot be said to be of a comparable land. 32. In the circumstances above, the applicant cannot claim that the market value of the acquired land can be determined on the basis of the said two sale deeds by considering the principles laid by the Apex Court in the cases cited above. 32. In the circumstances above, the applicant cannot claim that the market value of the acquired land can be determined on the basis of the said two sale deeds by considering the principles laid by the Apex Court in the cases cited above. In my considered opinion, on account of oral judgment dated 15.10.2010 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 9/2002, the impugned judgment and award cannot sustain and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside since the applicant has failed to prove that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.134/-per square metre or that it should be more than that awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. The point for determination gets answered in the negative. 33. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed. (b) The impugned judgment and award dated 20.10.2005 is quashed and set aside. (c) The Land Acquisition Case No.400/95 is dismissed. (d) No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.