Judgment 1. Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned additional Government advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 29/03/2006 whereby reference preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre. 3. Pursuant to a notification dated 26/06/1992 published in the official gazette dated 6/08/1992 under Section 4 of the said Act, the land belonging to the respondent admeasuring an area of 275 square metres from the property surveyed under no.164/2 situated at Benaulim village was intended to be acquired for the construction and black topping of St. Sebastian Chapel road via Wadi, Pequeno Pulwado and Pulwado in Village Panchayat of Benaulim. Vide award dated 13/07/1995 passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered to the respondent compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.8/-per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent preferred a reference under Section18 of the said Act and claimed for enhancement of compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.250/-per square metre. By the impugned judgment and award dated 29/03/2006, the Reference Court partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. The respondent after being duly served has preferred the cross-objection and claimed for enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.220/-per square metre. 5. Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the land acquired was comparable to the land which was subject matter of the Land Acquisition Case No.31/2000 whereby this Court has accepted the compensation fixed therein at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre. Learned additional Government advocate further pointed out that the land acquired was not accessible to the road and, as such, fixing the compensation on the basis of the said instance does arise at all. Learned additional Government advocate further pointed out that the land acquired was not accessible to the road and, as such, fixing the compensation on the basis of the said instance does arise at all. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record and has come to an erroneous conclusion that the respondent is entitled for enhancement of compensation. 6. On the other hand, Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre when according to him the market value of the land acquired in the vicinity of the acquired land is a sum of Rs.220/-per square metre. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the appellants have produced the Sale Deed at Exhibit 22 which is executed about two months prior to the notification in the present case which establishes that the market value of the land acquired in the vicinity of the acquired land was at the rate of Rs.218/-per square metre. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that considering that the land acquired is located close to the Sale Deed plot at a distance of 10 metres, the Reference Court was not justified to refuse to rely upon the said sale instance for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. Learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that the cross-objections filed the respondent deserve to be allowed and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court be enhanced to Rs.220/-per square metre. 7. In reply to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent the learned Additional Government Advocate has pointed out that it is well settled by the Apex Court that the compensation for the land acquired by the same notification is to be fixed at the same rate as otherwise according to her it would be unjust and inequitable to fix different compensation for different lands. Learned Counsel in support of the submissions relied on the judgment of this Court passed in First Appeal No.209/2005 dated 10/12/2010. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court is justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre. 9. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION: Whether the Reference Court is justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and material adduced on record, the Reference Court while fixing the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre has determined such amount on the basis of a previous award passed in respect of the land which was acquired pursuant to the same notification for the same purpose. In another judgment passed by this Court dated 1/03/2011 in First Appeal No.12/2006 in respect of the land acquired pursuant to the same notification and having survey number 164/5, the compensation determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre came to be upheld. Hence, contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants to the effect that Reference Court was not justified to fix the compensation on the basis of the previous awards passed in respect of the lands acquired pursuant to the same notification cannot be accepted. The Reference Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has relied upon the previous awards to determine the market value of the acquired land. 10. Dealing with the contention of Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, I find that merely because compensation has been fixed in respect of lands which are acquired pursuant to the same notification in previous awards at a particular rate does not by itself disentitle the claimant who has produced sale instance which discloses the rate at a higher value and having comparable features with the land acquired to claim higher compensation. It was incumbent upon such claimant to establish with the cogent evidence on record that the land acquired is comparable to the land which is the subject matter of the said sale instance. 11. It was incumbent upon such claimant to establish with the cogent evidence on record that the land acquired is comparable to the land which is the subject matter of the said sale instance. 11. In the present case, though respondent has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 22 wherein an area of about 1,000 square metres from property surveyed under no.164/3 was sold at the rate of Rs.218/-per square metre and it is claimed that the said Sale Deed plot is at a distance of 10 metres from the acquired land, nevertheless, on perusal of the affidavit of AW1, I find that there is only a bare statement on the part of AW1 to the effect that both the lands are similar in nature. There is no cogent evidence on record to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the said sale instance. In fact, in the affidavit filed by AW1 there is specific averment made therein to the effect that pursuant to the same notification a portion of the same property surveyed under no.164/3 has also been acquired but on perusal of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11, I find that the said portion has not been acquired. This further establishes that the Sale Deed plot and the land acquired are topographically in a different location. Merely producing the exemplar connecting the land which is subject matter of the instrument with the land acquired will be of little assistance to determine the compensation of the land acquired. It was incumbent upon the respondent to establish by the cogent evidence on record the comparability with the said land. In the present case, there was no expert examined nor any person conversant with the Sale Deed plot to establish such comparability. Once such evidence is found lacking, I find that it is very difficult to accept contentions of learned Senior Counsel Shri M.B. Da Costa, to the effect that the compensation is to be fixed on the basis of the Sale Deed at Exhibit 22, especially considering the fact that in most other portions of lands acquired pursuant to the same notification for the same purpose in the vicinity of the land acquired this Court has accepted that the market value of the land fixed at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre was just and appropriate. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (15) SCC 769 in the case Lal Chand v. Union of India has held at paras 71,73, 74 & 75 thus: 71. Therefore, though a certified copy of a sale deed may be received in evidence and exhibited even without examining the vendor and vendee, and accepted as proof of the transaction to which it relates, the courts have the discretion to rely upon it or reject it as unreliable or unacceptable for reasons to be recorded. But a word of caution. What Narasaiahand Cement Corpn. of India clarified was that a certified copy of a sale deed could be marked as an exhibit and its contents may be relied upon as evidence of the sale transaction, even without examining either the vendor or the vendee, in view of the enabling provision in Section 51 of the LA Act. 73. It cannot be said that merely because two properties adjoin each other or touch each other the value applicable to the property facing a main road, should be applied to the property to its rear facing a service road. Therefore, while a distance of about a kilometre may not make a difference for the purposes of market value in a rural village, even a distance of 50 metres may make a huge difference in market value in urban properties. 74. There would be lesser likelihood of rejection of a sale deed exhibited to prove the market value, if some witness speaks about the property which is the subject-matter of the exemplar sale deed and explains its situation, potential, as also about the similarities or dissimilarities with the acquired land. The distance between the two properties, the nature and situation of the property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining the market value. 75. Mere production of some exemplar deeds without “connecting” the subject-matter of the instrument, to the acquired lands will be of little assistance in determining the market value. Section 51-A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee. Apart from that on perusal of the Exhibit 22, the plot sold therein is adjoining the main road on the Western side. The plot is a portion of the property surveyed under no.164/3. Section 51-A of the LA Act only exempts the production of the original sale deed and examination of the vendor or vendee. Apart from that on perusal of the Exhibit 22, the plot sold therein is adjoining the main road on the Western side. The plot is a portion of the property surveyed under no.164/3. The width of the plot itself is 12.6 metres. On going through the boundaries in the schedule the acquired land surveyed under no.164/2 does not touch on any side the property surveyed under no.164/3. On perusal of the plan at Exhibit 27, the acquired portion of the land surveyed under no.163/2 is located at the interior at a distance of about 500 metres from the main road and, as such, it cannot be accepted that Sale Deed land is at a distance of 10 metres from the acquired land, as claimed by the respondent. It is also to be noted that the land acquired is in a semi-urban area of Benaulim close to Margao city and, as such, no guesswork to make deductions can be made without any material on record considering that the Court has accepted the market value at the rate of Rs.60/-per square metre for the adjoining land based on material on record. 12. Hence, on the basis of material on record, and considering the said judgment of the Apex Court, I find that the respondent has failed to establish by any positive evidence on record about the comparability of the land acquired with the sale instance and, as such, the question of enhancing the compensation claimed by the respondent would not arise. Cross-objections, as such, deserve to be rejected. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 13. In view of the above, I pass the following order. The appeal as well as the Cross-objections are dismissed with no order as to costs.