Judgment : Heard Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.17/2000 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was partly allowed and the compensation was fixed in respect of tenanted land at the rate of Rs.22/-per square metre and the land which was untenanted at the rate of Rs.26/-per square metre. Pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 08.06.1995, the land was intended to be acquired belonging to the respondent admeasuring an area of 30820 square metres from the property of which tenanted land was 29795 square metres and untenanted land was 1035 square metres from various holdings for the purpose of constructing a minor M3 of Salaulim Irrigation Project from ch5.12 Kms to 6.12 Kms and 6.71 Kms to 8.00 kms in the village of Velim in Salcete Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the formalities under the Act offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.17/-per square metre in respect of the tenanted land and a sum of Rs.20/-per square metre in respect of untenanted land. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.75/-per square metre for the tenanted land and Rs.200/-per square metre for the untenanted land. The learned Reference Court by judgment and award dated 30.06.2005 partly allowed the said reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.22/-per square metre for the tenanted land and a sum of Rs.26/-per square metre in respect of untenanted land. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has raised two contentions in support of his appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has raised two contentions in support of his appeal. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out that though the Reference Court whilst fixing the compensation for the land acquired has relied upon award under Section 11 of the said Act in respect of Village Ambelim with regard to the same project which is at Exhibit 14, nevertheless, has failed to consider as to whether the respondent has brought any evidence to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land which was the subject matter of Exhibit 14. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has not even given findings with regard to the comparability of the land acquired vis-a-vis the said land and as such, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence of the respondent and pointed out that there is no evidence adduced by the respondent to substantiate his contention that the land acquired in the present proceedings is comparable to the land which was subject matter of the award at Exhibit 14. The learned Counsel further pointed out that it is not in dispute that the land in Exhibit 14 is situated in Village Ambelim whereas the land in the present proceedings is situated in Velim Village. Next contention raised by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants is that the Reference Court whilst fixing the escalation on account of time gap between Section 4 notification for the land acquired in Exhibit 14 and in the present proceedings has granted escalation at the rate of 10% per annum which is exorbitant. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out that considering that the major portion of the land acquired is tenanted land such escalation of 10% cannot be justified. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the land was tenanted, such exorbitant escalation cannot be justified by taking note of the fact that the land is located in the Village. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out that considering that the major portion of the land acquired is tenanted land such escalation of 10% cannot be justified. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the land was tenanted, such exorbitant escalation cannot be justified by taking note of the fact that the land is located in the Village. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court in another judgment which is impugned in the First Appeal No.108/2007 in respect of land in the same Village belonging to the respondent has granted escalation of 7.5% per annum considering that the land acquired is located in a Village. The learned Counsel further pointed out that taking note of the said rate of escalation, the Reference Court was not justified to fix the escalation in the present proceedings at 10% per annum. 4. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel pointed out that though the lands are located in different Villages nevertheless such Villages are adjoining to one and another and according to the learned Counsel the potential and similarity of the lands in the two Villages are well known. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the respondent has stated in the affidavit in evidence that the land which was subject matter of the acquisition at Exhibit 14 was also acquired for same project about three years prior to the acquisition in the present case. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the amount of compensation fixed by the Reference Court on the basis of material on record which cannot be said to be exorbitant, there is no case made out by the appellants for interference by this Court in the impugned judgment and as such, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsels and on perusal of the records, the following points for determination arise in the present appeal : POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 1) Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired on the basis of award at Exhibit 14? 2) Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the escalation at the rate of 10% per annum while fixing the market value for the land acquired? 6. 2) Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the escalation at the rate of 10% per annum while fixing the market value for the land acquired? 6. With regard to the first contention of learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, I find that it is not in dispute that the land which was subject matter of the cquisition at Exhibit 14 was located in Ambelim Village. The land in the present case is located in Velim Village. The purpose for which the lands have been acquired are for the same purpose though located in two different adjoining Villages. Both the lands have been acquired are also substantially tenanted lands. Considering that the two Villages are adjoining one another and in view of the fact that the lands are tenanted, there is no bar for relying upon such award for fixing the compensation in the present proceedings. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act dated 26.06.98 and for fixing the rate of compensation has taken into consideration that similar type of land have been acquired for the project in nearby village of Ambelim approved in the month of March, 1998, and compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.17/-per square metre for the tenanted paddy field and a sum of Rs.20/-per square metre for untenanted, coconut or paddy field etc. Hence, the Land Acquisition Officer himself whilst giving an offer of compensation to the respondent has taken into consideration the award passed in respect of land which was found to be similar and located in Ambelim Village. Hence, the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants to the effect that the land in Ambelim Village cannot be comparable to the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition as it is located in Velim Village cannot be accepted. 7. Once the Land Acquisition Officer has found that the lands are similar in both the said Villages and offered the same rate for the land acquired, it is not open to the appellants to now contend that the land in Ambelim Village cannot be compared with the land which is located in Velim Village. Hence, the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation on the basis of award at Exhibit 14. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. Hence, the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation on the basis of award at Exhibit 14. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 8. With regard to the second point for determination, taking note of the fact that the learned Reference Court in proceedings which are the subject matter of First Appeal No.108/2007, has found that the escalation in Village Velim is to be fixed at the rate of 7.5% per annum in respect of the land which also belongs to the respondent, I find that there is no justification to grant different escalation at the rate of 10% per annum in the present proceedings. It is not in dispute that the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition and the land which was subject matter of the First Appeal No.108/2007 are located in the same village and the notification in the present proceedings was in the proximate period of time. As far as escalation is concerned, I find that the Reference Court was not justified to fix the escalation at the rate of 10% per annum which ought to have been 7.5% per annum for the reasons stated herein above. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 30.06.2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.17/2000 is modified and the compensation for the land acquired in respect of tenanted land is fixed at Rs.21/-per square metre and the land which is untenanted is fixed at the rate of Rs.25/-per square metre. (iii) Needless to say that the respondent is entitled for statutory benefits in accordance with law. (iv) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.