JUDGMENT A.p. Lavande, j. 1. Heard mr. Salkar, learned government advocate for the appellants and mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. All these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since the appeals are preferred against the awards dated 30th april, 2002 arising out of the same notification issued under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (“the act” for short) and the market rate fixed in all the cases is also the same. 3. First appeals no.227/02, 228/02 and 229/02 have been preferred against the judgments and awards passed by the additional district judge, at panaji in land acquisition case nos.49/98, 48/98 and 50/98, respectively. 4. By notification issued under section 4(1) of the act, the government of goa acquired lands of several persons, including the respondents in the above appeals, situated at colvale. The notification was published in the official gazette dated 4.6.1992. In land acquisition case no.49/98, the land belonging to the respondent admeasuring 653 square metres from survey nos. 196/7, 205/12 and 205/22 was acquired; in land acquisition case no. 48/98, land belonging to the respondents admeasuring 8710 square metres from survey nos. 196/1, 196/18, 197/13, 205/19 and 205/26 was acquired and in land acquisition case no.50/98, land admeasuring 915 square metres, bearing survey nos. 205/1, 205/18, 205/28 and 205/29 belonging to the respondent was acquired. 5. The land acquisition officer made an award and fixed the market rate of the acquired lands at rs. 10/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the award, the respondents in the three appeals sought reference under section 18 of the act and claimed compensation at the rate of rs. 80/- per square metre. 6. In land acquisition case no.49/98, the respondent dattaram parsekar examined himself as aw.1 and produced sale deed dated 27.3.1992, in respect of a plot of land situated at colvale, at a distance of about 1 km. Away from the acquired land, which was sold at the rate of rs.76/- per square metre. The respondent also examined aw.2 chandrakant shirodkar. The appellants herein examined one witness by name t.a. Achutan as rw.1. In land acquisition case no.48/98, the respondents examined aw.1 laxmidas dicholkar, and aw.2 chandrakant shirodkar. The appellants herein examined rw1. T.a. Achutan, in land acquisition case no.50/98, the respondent examined himself as aw.l and chandrakant shirodkar as aw.2. On behalf of the appellants t.a. Achutan was examined as rw.1. In land acquisition case no.48/98, the respondents examined aw.1 laxmidas dicholkar, and aw.2 chandrakant shirodkar. The appellants herein examined rw1. T.a. Achutan, in land acquisition case no.50/98, the respondent examined himself as aw.l and chandrakant shirodkar as aw.2. On behalf of the appellants t.a. Achutan was examined as rw.1. In both these cases also sale deed dated 27.3.1992 was relied upon by the respondents. 7. The reference court, after placing reliance upon sale deed dated 27 th march, 1992 by which an area of 1950 square metres was sold at the price of rs.1,50,000/- i.e. At the rate of rs.77/- per sq. Metre and considering that the plot of land sold under the sale deed was at a distance of 1 km. Away from the acquired lands, and of similar nature, after deducting 50 % from the consideration mentioned in the sale deed, fixed the market rate of the acquired lands at rs. 38/- per square metre. 8. Aggrieved by the three judgments and awards dated 30th April, 2002, passed by the additional district judge, in land acquisition cases no.49/98, 48/98 and 50/98, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 9. With the consent of the learned government advocate appearing for the appellants and mr. Mulgaonkar appearing for the respondents in all the three appeals, all these appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since the facts in all the three appeals are almost identical and the question of law involved in these appeals is the same. 10. Mr. Salkar, learned government advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that admittedly, the lands acquired were agricultural tenanted lands and, as such, the reference court should not have placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 27 th march, 1992 which was in respect of a developed plot. Mr. Salkar further submitted that in view of the judgment of this court in the case of smt. Janaki n. Morajkar vs. Spl. Land acquisition officer, goa and anr. , 2005 (3) AllMR 824 , no enhancement should have been granted by the reference court on the basis of the consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 27 th march, 1992 which was in respect of a developed plot. According to mr. Janaki n. Morajkar vs. Spl. Land acquisition officer, goa and anr. , 2005 (3) AllMR 824 , no enhancement should have been granted by the reference court on the basis of the consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 27 th march, 1992 which was in respect of a developed plot. According to mr. Salkar, the valuation of the acquired lands should have been on the basis of the agricultural income and since the respondents have not led any evidence about the agricultural income from the acquired lands, the reference court ought not to have granted any enhancement. Therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be set aside. Mr. Salkar placed reliance upon an unreported judgment of this court dated 1 st september, 2010 in the case of smt. Satyabhama narayan korgaonkar vs. Spl. Land acquisition officer (n) and another, (first appeals no.7, 8, 9, and 10 of 2003) in which this court has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of smt. Janaki n. Morajkar (supra), and dismissed the appeal. 11. Per contra, mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all the appeals, submitted that the judgment in the case of smt. Janaki n. Morajkar (supra) has been considered by the apex court in the case of goa housing board vs. rAmeshchandra govind pawaskar and anr., and in the said case, compensation in respect of tenanted agricultural land has been enhanced on the basis of the price fixed in the sale deed, after making appropriate deductions and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of smt. Janaki n. Morajkar (supra) is not attracted in the present case. The learned counsel further submitted that the reference court has rightly deducted 50% from the consideration mentioned in the sale deed dated 27 th march, 1992 upon which reliance was placed by the respondents. Mr. Mulgaonkar submitted that the sale deed dated 27th march, 1992 was in respect of a land similar to the acquired lands and even applying the ratio of the judgment of the apex court in the case of goa housing board (supra), the compensation fixed by the reference court does not warrant any interference. Mr. Mulgaonkar then submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of rameshchandra pawaskar (supra), the matter be remanded to the reference court. Mr. Mr. Mulgaonkar then submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of rameshchandra pawaskar (supra), the matter be remanded to the reference court. Mr. Mulgaonkar also submitted that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and awards and, as such, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgments relied upon. 13. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for determination in all these three appeals : 1. Whether the matters deserve to be remanded to the reference court ? 2. Whether the reference court was legally justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired lands at rs.38/- per sq. Metre ? if not, what was the market rate of the acquired lands as on the date of publication of section 4 (1) notification ? 14. Perusal of the impugned judgments and awards discloses that the reference court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 27.3.1992 which was in respect of property bearing survey no.222/4 along with a house existing therein, admeasuring 1950 square metres, situated in village colvale, bardez taluka, goa and fixed the market rate for the acquired land at rs.38/- per square metre, after deducting 50% on the ground that the said property and the acquired lands were situated in the same village at a distance of about one kilometer. 15. In the case of rameshchandra govind pawaskar (supra), the apex court considered the judgment of this court in the case of janaki morajkar (supra) and did not specifically disagree with the view taken therein. In the said case, the apex court placing reliance upon the value of the land in the neighbourhood which could be used for all purposes, deducted 50% and arrived at a figure of rs.50/- per square metre. 16. reliance has been placed by the reference court upon a sale deed in respect of a property which is not similar to the acquired land inasmuch as the acquired land is, admittedly, tenanted agricultural land, whereas the plot which was sold by sale deed dated 27.3.1992 was not tenanted agricultural land. Therefore, the reference court could not have simply deducted 50% for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. 17. Therefore, the reference court could not have simply deducted 50% for the purpose of fixing the market rate of the acquired land. 17. Since the impugned judgments and awards dated 30.4.2002 in land acquisition case nos.49 of 1998, 48 of 1998 and 50 of 1998 were passed by the additional district judge, panaji, were passed much prior to the judgments of this court in the case of janaki morajkar (supra) and of the apex court in rameshchandra pawaskar (supra), it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned judgments and awards and remand the matter to the reference court to give an opportunity to the respondents to place on record any material, including sale instances in respect of lands similar to the acquired land and also to give opportunity to the appellants to lead evidence in rebuttal. We do not propose to appreciate the evidence led by the appellants in support of their claim for higher compensation. 18. Mr. Salkar, learned government advocate appearing for the appellants has relied upon judgment of this court dated 1.9.2010 passed in first appeal nos.7/2003, 8/2003, 9/2003 and 10/2003 in which this court, placing reliance upon judgment of division bench of this court in case of janaki morajkar (supra), dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the awards passed by the reference court rejecting the reference on the ground that acquired lands were tenanted agricultural lands. According to mr. Salkar, facts in the present appeals are almost identical with the facts of the cases in the above referred four appeals. no doubt, the above referred four appeals preferred by the claimants were dismissed by this court on the ground that the acquired lands were tenanted agricultural lands and as such, the judgment in the case of janaki morajkar (supra) was squarely applicable. However, judgment of the apex court in the case of rameshchandra govind pawaskar (supra) was delivered on 11.10.2011. Moreover, in first appeal no. 27/04 (narayan vithu vaigankar, since deceased through legal heirs vs. Deputy collector and another) which has been disposed of by the division bench ( to which i am party), in identical set of facts, we have remanded the case in view of the judgment in the case of ramesh pawaskar (supra). no doubt, first appeal no. 27/2004 was preferred by the claimants/appellants, but that would not make much difference. no doubt, first appeal no. 27/2004 was preferred by the claimants/appellants, but that would not make much difference. Therefore, i propose to follow the judgment in the case of narayan vithu vaigankar (supra). 19. In my considered opinion, the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matters and giving opportunity to the respondents to lead further evidence in support of their claim for higher compensation, more particularly having regard to the fact that the judgments in the cases of janaki morajkar (supra) and rameshchandra pawaskar (supra) were delivered after the impugned judgments and awards. 20. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgments and awards dated 30.4.2002 in land acquisition case nos.49 of 1998, 48 of 1998 and 50 of 1998 passed by the additional district judge, panaji are quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the reference court. 21. The reference court shall permit the respondents to lead further evidence, if they so desire, and also permit the appellants to lead evidence in rebuttal. The reference court, after considering the evidence already led and the additional evidence, if any led by the parties, shall proceed to pass awards in the light of the ratio laid down by this court in the case of janaki morajkar (supra) and the apex court in the case of rameshchandra pawaskar (supra). 22. Since the references are of the year 1998 and the acquisition is of the year 1992, i deem it appropriate to expedite the disposal of land acquisition case nos.48 of 1998, 49 of 1998 and 50 of 1998. 23. The parties shall appear before the reference court on 10 th april, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. The reference court shall dispose of the references expeditiously and, in any case, on or before 30th september, 2012, in the light of the observations made above. 24. Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.