Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Sonak, learned Advocate for the appellants. None present for the respondents. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 06/12/2003 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.122/1997. 3. By Notification dated 19/01/2001 issued under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short), the Government of Goa acquired lands for public purpose, namely construction of new S.G. Line between Toha and Mangalore in the village of Asnora and Dhargal, Bardez and Pernem Taluka. An area admeasuring 1625 square meters from Survey No.296/1, 9100 square meters from Survey No.296/2 and 2250 square meters from Survey No.295 belonging to the original appellant Rajendra Vasudevo Deshprabhu were the parts of the acquired lands. By award dated 28/01/1994, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.16/-per square meter for all the above lands. The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased Rajendra Deshprabhu. 4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted, the original applicant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.45/-per square meter. 5. In Land Acquisition Case No.122/1997, the applicant examined himself as AW1, Manoj Sinai Dhargalkar as AW2, Francis Castellio as AW3, Shri Ankush Parab as AW4 and Lavoo Sawant as AW5. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, awarded Rs.40/-in respect of an area admeasuring 2250 square metres of land bearing Survey No.295. However, in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2, the Reference Court rejected the reference on the ground that there were claims of tenancy by the tenants in respect of the said lands and since the lands were tenanted agricultural lands, the applicant was not entitled to higher compensation. 6. Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in respect of the very same Survey Numbers, a reference has been already made under Section 30 of the Act on account of claims made by the original applicant & persons claiming to be tenants, to the said compensation & the said reference is pending before the Ad hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mapusa, Goa bearing Land Acquisition Case No.122/1996. Mr. Mr. Sonak further submitted that tenancy proceedings have been initiated by the persons claiming tenancy in Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 which are pending before the Mamlatdar, Pernem and the proceedings are about to be concluded. 7. Mr. Sonak submitted that the appellants have no grievance insofar as the compensation granted in respect of Survey No.295 is concerned, but insofar as Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 are concerned, the Reference Court could not have rejected the reference and ought to have kept the reference pending till the decision of the competent authority under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. Mr. Sonak further submitted that without the decision on the issue of tenancy by the competent authority, the Reference Court could not have rejected the reference in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 & 296/2 on the ground that the said lands acquired were tenanted agricultural lands. 8. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the following point arises for determination in the appeal : (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference in respect of Survey nos.296/1 and 296/2 on the ground that the said lands were tenanted agricultural lands ? 10. It is settled that the Reference Court dealing with reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot decide the issue of tenancy, if arises in the reference and if such an issue arises, the only course open to the appellant is to make reference to the Mamlatdar, who has exclusive jurisdiction under the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act. Admittedly, tenancy proceedings in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 are pending before the Mamlatdar, Pernem. Therefore, the Reference Court could not have rejected the reference in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 & 296/2 on the ground that the said lands were tenanted agricultural lands, in the absence of the issue of tenancy being decided by the authorities under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. 11. Since the issue of tenancy is pending before the Mamlatdar of Pernem in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 & 296/2, it would be just and proper to set aside the award insofar as Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 are concerned inasmuch as the entitlement of the appellants to any higher compensation will depend upon the decision of the authorities under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. In the present case, since the tenancy proceedings are pending before the Mamlatdar of Pernem, although may not be pursuant to the reference made by the Reference Court dealing with the reference under Section 30 of the Act, the pendency of proceedings before the Mamlatdar can be taken as proceedings arising out of reference made by the Reference Court since it will be futile exercise for Reference Court to make reference when the issue of tenancy is already pending before the Mamlatdar, Pernem. Therefore, it would be just and proper to set aside the award insofar as Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 is concerned and remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh decision depending upon the outcome of the tenancy proceedings pending before the Mamlatdar of Pernem in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 & 296/2. The impugned award insofar as Survey No.295 is concerned, is liable to be maintained. 12. In the result, therefore, the impugned award insofar as the lands covered under Survey Nos.296/1 & 296/2 are concerned, is quashed and set aside. The appellants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.40/-per square metre in respect of Survey No.295. The Reference Court shall decide the reference depending upon the outcome of the proceedings before the Mamlatdar & authorities under the Agricultural Tenancy Act. 13. The impugned award was passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Panaji and according to Mr. Sonak, reference arising under Section 30 of the Act between the appellants and the persons claiming to be tenants in respect of Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 is pending before the Ad hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No.122/1996. It would be just and proper if the reference under Section 18 as well as under Section 30 of the Act, are decided by one and the same Court. Therefore, the matter is remanded to Ad hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mapusa, who is presently dealing with Land Acquisition Case No.122/1996, who shall take up the present Land Acquisition Case No.122/1997 along with Land Acquisition Case No.122/1996 and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made above. 14. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. 14. In the result, therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The appeal insofar as Survey No.295 is concerned, is dismissed by maintaining the market rate of Rs.40/-per square meter and the impugned award is set aside insofar as Survey Nos.296/1 and 296/2 are concerned. 15. The parties shall appear before the Ad hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mapusa on 07/06/2012 at 10.00 a.m. 16. The appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.