Judgment 1. Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, the learned counsel for the Appellants. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 17/11/2004, of the Learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court), in Land Acquisition Case No.136/1999. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as their names appear in the cause title of the said L. A. Case No.136/1999. 4. Facts required for disposal of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under: Vide Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 15/5/1996, the Government acquired land situated in Margao city, for the construction of a new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway, which included the land admeasuring 1802 square metres from the properties bearing chalta nos.22 and 23 of P.T. Sheet 266 (part) and chalta no.29 of P.T.S. no.268 (part) of Aquem Margao. 5. By award dated 20/11/1998, the Respondent no.1, (L.A.O.) offered the compensation at the rate of Rs.11/-per square metre towards the acquired land bearing chalta no.22 of P. T. Sheet No. 266 (part) and admeasuring 959 square metres; compensation at the rate of Rs.12.25 paise per square metre towards the land bearing chalta no. 23 of P. T. Sheet no.266 (part) and admeasuring 404 square metres; and compensation at the rate of Rs.12.25 paise per square metre towards the chalta no. 29 of P. T. Sheet no. 268 (part) and admeasuring 439 square metres. 6. Not being satisfied with the compensation offered by the L.A.O, the applicants sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. The L.A.O., accordingly, made the reference, before the Reference Court and the same was registered as said L.A. Case No.136/1999. The applicants claimed total compensation at the rate of Rs.700/-for the entire acquired land. 7. The applicants examined the applicant no. 1 as AW.1 and in support of their claim relied upon: (a) Sale deed dated 9/12/1993 (Exhibit 20). (b) Sale deed dated 22/4/1996 (Exhibit 21). (c) Form B pertaining to chalta no.22. of P. T. S No. 266 (Exhibit 22). (d) Form B pertaining to chalta no. 23. of chalta no. 266 (Exhibit 23). (e) Form B pertaining to chalta no.29 of P. T. S no. 268 (Exhibit 24). (b) Sale deed dated 22/4/1996 (Exhibit 21). (c) Form B pertaining to chalta no.22. of P. T. S No. 266 (Exhibit 22). (d) Form B pertaining to chalta no. 23. of chalta no. 266 (Exhibit 23). (e) Form B pertaining to chalta no.29 of P. T. S no. 268 (Exhibit 24). (f) Survey plan of said chalta nos.22 and 23 of P. T. S no. 266 and chalta no.29 of P. T. S No. 268 (Exhibit 25). (g) Judgment and award dated 31/8/2001 of the Additional District Judge, Margao in L.A.C. No. 314 of 1995 (Exhibit 26). (h) Agreement of development dated 22/7/1989 (Exhibit 27). 8. The applicants also examined one Ulhas Poingekar as AW2 for proving the said sale deed dated 22.4.1996 (Exhibit 21) and one Government registered Valuer/ Engineering Consultant namely, Mr. Vikas Dessai, as AW.3, who produced valuation report prepared by him, as Exhibit 33. 9. The respondents did not examined any witness. 10. The sale deed dated 9/12/1993 at Exhibit 20, pertained to Plot “Y” of Plot no.1-A of a sub-divided property situated at Aquem Alto, Margao and it had an area of 500 square metres, with a road of 10 metres width on the western side. The same was a fully developed plot sold for Rs.2,50,000/-. There was no evidence of comparison of the acquired land with the said fully developed plot, brought on record by the applicants. The said sale deed (Exhibit 20) was rejected by the reference Court and in my view, rightly so. 11. The second sale deed dated 22/4/1996 at Exhibit 21 does not appear to be a transaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. AW.2 is the purchaser and he has admitted that there was a house in this Plot no. 2 and he purchased the Plot along with the house. As has been rightly pointed out by the reference Court, the vendors had filed Case no. Bldg/ARC-IV/29/88 before the Rent Controller for eviction of father of the purchaser who was occupying the said house in the said property, as tenant. The Rent Controller had proposed a compromise and suggested that the land on which the house existed and surrounding area be sold to the purchaser at a reasonable price. Bldg/ARC-IV/29/88 before the Rent Controller for eviction of father of the purchaser who was occupying the said house in the said property, as tenant. The Rent Controller had proposed a compromise and suggested that the land on which the house existed and surrounding area be sold to the purchaser at a reasonable price. It was as a result of the said compromise that the plot no.2 which was a developed plot in all respects and admeasuring 411.80 square metres was sold at the rate of Rs.400/-per square metre. As has been rightly held by the reference Court, it is not safe to rely upon the said sale deed. The reference court has rightly rejected the same. 12. The learned reference Court also rejected the opinion of the expert valuer and Engineer Shri Vikas Dessai (AW.4) and in my view rightly so. The date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act is 15/5/1996. The Expert, AW.3, says that he carried out inspection of the acquired land on 30/6/1996, but, however, most surprisingly, the valuation report prepared by him bears the date 7/4/1999, which is almost after three years from the date of publication of Section 4 notification as well as from the date of his alleged site inspection of the acquired land. The learned reference court has placed reliance in “Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bom. V/s. Vishanji Vijee Mapani and anr” ( AIR 1996 Bom. 366 ), wherein it has been held that if the report has been prepared in respect of the acquired land, much beyond the material date for determination of the compensation, the evidence of such an expert does not render any assistance as the same lacks objectivity required of professional. 13. The evidence on record reveals that land under chalta no. 22 of P. T. Sheet no.266 (part) was a tenanted paddy field. The applicant has admitted that there was a dispute between him and one Sadanand regarding tenancy in the Court of Mamlatdar. The applicant has admitted that said Sadanand had claimed compensation before the L.A.O. in the present acquisition proceedings and the L.A.O. had referred the reference to the District Court under Section 30 of the L. A. Act. In the award made by the L.A.O., he has awarded 50% of the compensation amount to the applicant namely Sadanand Shirgaonkar in respect of chalta no. In the award made by the L.A.O., he has awarded 50% of the compensation amount to the applicant namely Sadanand Shirgaonkar in respect of chalta no. 22 of P. T. Sheet no.266 (part), which means that the applicant had not disputed the tenancy of Sadanand before the L.A.O. The learned reference Court has rightly concluded that chalta no.22 of P.T. Sheet no.266 is tenanted paddy filed and hence was not fit for construction purposes. The reference court, therefore, declined to give any enhancement in the compensation offered by the L.A.O in respect of the acquired land bearing chalta no. 22 of P. T. Sheet no. 266. No fault can be attributed to the finding of the reference Court, in this regard. 14. The land acquired from chalta no. 23 of P. T. Sheet no.266 was a narrow strip of land having width of only 3 metres and there is evidence on record showing that it was a bund consisting of coconut plantation. The said bund, as stated by the applicant, was bounded on the eastern side by a nullah and on the western side by chalta no. 22 of P. T. Sheet no. 226 (part), which was a tenanted paddy field. Therefore, the learned reference court declined making any enhancement in the compensation offered by the L.A.O. in respect of the acquired land from chalta no. 23 of P. T. S no. 266 (part). Here also, the finding is correctly arrived at. 15. In so far as the acquired land admeasuring chalta no.29 of P. T. Sheet 268 (Part) admeasuring 439 square metres, the learned reference court has enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 431/-per square metre and by deducting the rate of Rs.12.25 paise fixed by the L.A.O., the Reference Court has held that the applicant is entitled to excess compensation of Rs. 418.75 paise. Other statutory benefits have also been granted to the applicant under the provisions of the L.A. Act. The said enhancement has been done on the basis of the judgment and award dated 31/8/2001 of the Additional District Judge, Margao, which is at Exhibit 26. The said award pertains to land admeasuring 2236.5 square metres of land under P. T. Sheet No. 268/6 (part) of Margao city. The L.A.O had awarded the rate of Rs.7.50 paise per square metre. The said award pertains to land admeasuring 2236.5 square metres of land under P. T. Sheet No. 268/6 (part) of Margao city. The L.A.O had awarded the rate of Rs.7.50 paise per square metre. The date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act was 16/5/1998. By judgment and award dated 31/8/2001, passed in the said L. A. Case No.314/1995, the learned Additional District Judge, Margao, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 268/-per square metre. Since the notification under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act pertaining to the acquired land of the present case was published on 5/5/996, the present acquisition was five years after the said acquisition which is subject matter of L. A. Case NO. 314/1995. Taking into consideration increase in prices of lands at 10% per annum, on compounding basis, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land bearing chalta no. 29 of P. T. Sheet no. 268(part) at Rs. 431/-per square metre. 16. The applicants have not challenged the judgment and award of the learned reference Court. The respondents have, however, challenged the same, in the present Appeal. 17. The point that arises for determination is whether the reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation, as above. 18. During the course of arguments, Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel for the respondents, did not dispute the consideration of the said award in L. A. Case No. 314/1995 as as basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land, of the present case, from chalta no. 29 of P. T. Sheet No. 268(part), as the land which was the subject matter of the said award was undeveloped and was acquired for the same purpose of construction of new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway and it was found that the acquired land which was subject matter of the said judgment and award is adjacent to the acquired land of the present case. The learned Advocate Shri A. D. Bhobe fairly conceded that in all respects the land which was subject matter of the said award was similar to the said acquired land of the present case. However, learned Shri A. D. Bhobe has pointed out that the award of the learned Additional District Judge in L. A. Case no. The learned Advocate Shri A. D. Bhobe fairly conceded that in all respects the land which was subject matter of the said award was similar to the said acquired land of the present case. However, learned Shri A. D. Bhobe has pointed out that the award of the learned Additional District Judge in L. A. Case no. 314/1995 was challenged by the respondents before this High Court and in First Appeal No. 62/2002, this Court has partly allowed the said Appeal and the market value of the acquired land which was subject matter of L. A. Case No. 314/1995 has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 160/-per square metre. Learned Shri Bhobe, therefore, contended that the compensation awarded to the applicants is liable to be reduced and re-fixed after giving 10% increase per annum on compounding basis. There is no dispute about the fact that by taking into account the gap of five years between the dates of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act, in respect of the acquired land of both the cases and giving 10% increase per annum on compounding basis to the value of Rs.160/-per square metre, the said market value becomes Rs. 244.36 paise (rounded up to Rs.244/-) per square metre. 19. I am of the view, therefore, that the applicants are entitled for market rate at the rate of Rs. 244/-per square metre for the acquired land from chalta no. 29 of P. T. Sheet No. 268(part). The Appeal, therefore, succeeds partly. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the market value of the acquired land admeasuring 439 square metres from chalta no. 29 of P. T. Sheet no. 268 (part) is fixed at Rs. 244/-per square metre. The judgment and award dated 17/11/2004 of the learned Reference Court, impugned in this appeal, shall stand modified to that extent. The applicants would be entitled to all the consequential statutory benefits on the market value now fixed by this Court. Needless to mention that the amount already paid to the applicants, if any, shall be adjusted. Considering the facts, parties to bear their own costs.