Judgment : (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. 2. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the land acquisition references made pursuant to the notification dated 28.7.1996 issued by the Government of Goa. 3. By notification dated 28.7.1996, published in the local news papers on 6th September, 1996, large tracts of land were acquired by the Government in Village Bhimpal and Pissurlem of Sattari Taluka for the purpose of expansion of Honda Industrial Estate. An area admeasuring 54,057 sq. metres of survey No. 24/1 of Village Pissurlem, belonging to the appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 and an area admeasuring 88,435 sq. metres of the very same survey number, belonging to the appellant in First Appeal No.285/2007 were part of the acquired land. 4. The appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.150/-per sq. metre and the appellant in First Appeal No.285/2007 claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.100/-per sq. metre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.8/-per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land. 5. Aggrieved by the compensation granted, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.150/-and Rs.100/-per sq. metre, respectively. Pursuant to the said references, Land Acquisition Cases No.2/2000 and 3/2000 were registered. 6. In both the cases, the appellants examined themselves and six more witnesses in support of their claim. On behalf of the respondents, two Officers of the acquiring department and one photographer were examined. 7. The appellants herein placed reliance upon two sale deeds, one lease deed and an award in respect of earlier acquisition in terms of Notification dated 7.3.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act which was for the purpose of expansion of Honda Industrial Estate, at Bhuimpal and Saleli Village in Sattari Taluka. The respondents placed reliance upon four sale deeds in respect of unacquired portions of Survey No.24/1, executed by other co-owners prior to the publication of Section 4 notification. 8. The reference Court, upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties in both the references, by judgments and awards dated 16.6.2007 rejected the references primarily on the ground that the appellants herein had not led any evidence to establish their right to higher compensation. 8. The reference Court, upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties in both the references, by judgments and awards dated 16.6.2007 rejected the references primarily on the ground that the appellants herein had not led any evidence to establish their right to higher compensation. The reference Court held that the appellants failed to establish the similarity between the land which was subject-matter of the award made pursuant to Section 4 notification dated 7th March, 1991 and the acquired land. The reference Court placed reliance upon four sale deeds which were in respect of undivided portions of Survey No.24/1, under which the lands were sold at the rate ranging from Rs.4/-to Rs.8/-per sq. metre and held that no interference was warranted with the market rate fixed by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.8/-per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land. Aggrieved by the rejection of the references, the appellants have preferred the above appeals. 9. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals, submitted that the reference Court ought not to have relied upon the four sale deeds in respect of the undivided portions of land, inasmuch as admittedly, the said sale deeds were not in respect of specific portions of land, but in respect of undivided portions, and as such, could not have been relied upon for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. Mr. Ramani further submitted that the reference Court recorded a finding that the appellants had not established the similarity between the land acquired and the land which was subject-matter of the award dated 23.9.1994 without considering the evidence led by the appellants and also by the respondents themselves, more particularly in paragraphs 14 and 19 of the affidavit filed by one S.A. Belwadi, Field Manager of the respondents. Mr. Ramani further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.9/-per sq. metre for the cultivable land and Rs.5/-per sq. metre for natural cover in respect of the land acquired in terms of the award dated 23.9.1994 and the same was enhanced by the reference Court, which enhancement was upheld by this Court in the appeals preferred by the respondents herein. Mr. metre for the cultivable land and Rs.5/-per sq. metre for natural cover in respect of the land acquired in terms of the award dated 23.9.1994 and the same was enhanced by the reference Court, which enhancement was upheld by this Court in the appeals preferred by the respondents herein. Mr. Ramani further submitted that the reference Court refused to place any reliance on the lease deed dated 12.2.1996 (Exhibit-19) upon which reliance was placed, on the ground that the same was executed subsequent to the notification which is factually incorrect. Mr. Ramani further submitted that having regard to the voluminous oral and documentary evidence led by the appellants, the appellants are entitled to higher compensation. In the alternative, Mr. Ramani submitted that having regard to the fact that the reference Court has refused to place reliance upon admissible evidence and has not considered the similarity of the acquired land with the land in award dated 23/9/1994, he would have no objection if the impugned judgments and awards are set aside and the matters remanded to the reference Court for fresh consideration. Mr. Ramani relied upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Tayarammal, Tmt. Rajini and Tmt. Anuradha. 10. Per contra, Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submitted that the reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the four sale deeds in respect of the portions of the remaining land of Survey No.24/1, more particularly having regard to the fact that majority of the sale deeds disclose that not only undivided rights in the said property were sold by the vendors, but specific portions of survey No.24/1 were sold by the vendors thereto to the purchasers and the possession was parted with, as is evident from a bare perusal of the sale deeds. Mr. Sonak, therefore, by placing reliance upon the four sale deeds, submitted that it is settled law that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act the price at which the remaining portion of the property is sold by the co-owners, would be the market rate in respect of the acquired land. Mr. Mr. Sonak, therefore, by placing reliance upon the four sale deeds, submitted that it is settled law that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act the price at which the remaining portion of the property is sold by the co-owners, would be the market rate in respect of the acquired land. Mr. Sonak further submitted that the appellants had not led any cogent evidence to show the comparability of the land which was subject matter of the acquisition in respect of the award dated 23.9.94 and also in respect of the two sale deeds upon which reliance has been placed by the appellants vis-a-vis the acquired land. Mr. Sonak further submitted that the reference Court is entitled to place reliance upon not only the sale deeds, but even on an agreement of sale and in support of this proposition, Mr. Sonak placed reliance upon the judgments of Gujarat High Court in the case of Collector, Baroda and another vs. Haridas Maganlal Parikh and others, (AIR 1970 Gujarat 91) and of the Apex Court in the case of Raghubans Narain vs. Govt. of U.P. ( AIR 1967 SC 465 ). Lastly, Mr. Sonak fairly submitted that he will have no objection if the matter is remanded for fresh consideration, to the reference Court in view of the submission made on behalf of the appellants. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon on behalf of the defendant. 12. In view of the rival submissions, the the following points arise for determination in the present appeals : (1) Whether the appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.150/-per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land ? (2) Whether the appellant in First Appeal No. 285/2007 is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.100/-per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land ? (3) Whether the matters deserve to be remanded to the reference Court for fresh consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 13. Perusal of the impugned judgments and awards discloses that the reference Court has relied upon four sale deeds, by which some of the co-owners have sold their undivided right to the purchasers at a price ranging between Rs. 4/-to Rs.8/-per sq. metre during the period of two years, prior to the publication of Section 4 notification. 13. Perusal of the impugned judgments and awards discloses that the reference Court has relied upon four sale deeds, by which some of the co-owners have sold their undivided right to the purchasers at a price ranging between Rs. 4/-to Rs.8/-per sq. metre during the period of two years, prior to the publication of Section 4 notification. According to Mr. Ramani, the price which is mentioned in respect of the undivided share, can never be the basis for fixing the market rate of the remaining portion of the same land inasmuch as a co-owner cannot transfer the possession of a specific portion of land. However, the sale deeds produced on record mention that pursuant to the sale deeds, possessions of specific portions of land have been given to the purchasers. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned reference Court while placing reliance upon the four sale deeds. 14. Moreover, the reference Court has rejected the lease deed dated 12.2.1996 relied upon by the appellants on the ground that it was executed subsequent to the notification, which is factually incorrect inasmuch as the notification in the present case was issued on 6.9.1996 i.e. much after the execution of the lease deed. 15. As stated above, the reference Court has also rejected the references on the ground that the appellants have not established similarity between the acquired land and the land which was subject-matter of the award dated 23.9.1994. The respondents have examined S.A. Belwadi as RW.1 and there is a reference to the nature of the acquired land in paragraphs 14 and 19 of his affidavit dated 23.8.05. In our view, the reference Court was bound to consider the nature of the land as disclosed in the affidavit of the witness examined by the respondents for the purpose of finding out whether on the basis of the evidence led by the respondents itself any comparison could have been made with the nature of the land in the award dated 23.9.1994. This exercise has, admittedly, not been done by the reference Court. 16. No doubt, this Court, as an appellate Court is entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion on the basis of the evidence already led by the parties. This exercise has, admittedly, not been done by the reference Court. 16. No doubt, this Court, as an appellate Court is entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion on the basis of the evidence already led by the parties. But having regard to the fact that the learned reference Court has not considered several relevant aspects which were required to be considered, in our opinion, the submission made by Mr. Ramani that the matter be remanded to the reference Court deserves to be accepted. Moreover, Mr. Sonak, on behalf of the respondents has also submitted that he has no objection if the matters are remanded. Therefore, in our opinion, interest of justice would be served by setting aside the impugned judgments and awards and remanding the matters to the reference Court for fresh consideration. 17. In the result, therefore, the impugned judgments and awards passed in Land Acquisition Cases No.2/2000 and 3/2000 both dated 16th June, 2007 are quashed and set aside and the matters remanded to the reference Court for fresh consideration. The reference Court, after considering the evidence already led by the parties and also the judgments, if any, relied upon by both sides in support of their submissions, to pass fresh judgments and awards after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard, in accordance with law. 18. It is made clear that all contentions of both sides are kept open and we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. 19. The parties to appear before the reference Court on 5th February, 2013 at 10.00 a.m. Having regard to the fact that the references are of the year 2000, the reference Court shall dispose of the references expeditiously. 20. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.