JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. This Appeal and Cross Objection are directed against the Judgment and Award dated 15/02/2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 72/2002. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case. 4. Vide Notification No. 22/58/98-RD dated 13/7/1998 issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act', for short) published in the Official Gazette dated 28/8/1998 and at concerned places on 2/9/1998, the Government acquired land for construction and black topping of the road from U. M. Mohammed House to Khandi via Mobor in Village Panchayat Cavelossim. This included an area of 240 square metres from survey no. 125/1; an area of 3300 square metres from survey no. 126/1 and an area of 18 square metres form survey no. 126/4 of Cavelossim village. The learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short), by award dated 27/8/2001, fixed the market rate of Rs. 62/- per square metre for the said acquired land. The compensation awarded for the acquired land from survey no. 125/1 was accepted by the applicant under protest whereas that awarded for the acquired land from survey no. 126/4 was accepted by him without protest. The compensation in respect of the acquired land from survey no. 126/1 was deposited in the District Court, South Goa, along with reference under Section 30 of the Act as there was dispute between the applicant and the Communidade of Cavelossim. Not being satisfied with the market rate fixed by the L.A.O., the applicant who claimed to be interested party with regard to the above acquired land, made an application under section 18 of the Act before the L.A.O. alleging that the proper compensation for the acquired land would be at the rate of Rs..1000/- per square metre. The L.A.O. referred the matter to the District Court, South Goa and that gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 72/2002. 5. Based on the claim of the applicant, an issue came to be framed. The applicant examined himself as AW.1 and a Civil Engineer, namely Krishna Prabhu Desai as AW.2. The respondents did not examine any witness. 6. The L.A.O. referred the matter to the District Court, South Goa and that gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 72/2002. 5. Based on the claim of the applicant, an issue came to be framed. The applicant examined himself as AW.1 and a Civil Engineer, namely Krishna Prabhu Desai as AW.2. The respondents did not examine any witness. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs..100/-per square metre and also held that the applicant is entitled to the statutory benefits. Costs were fixed at Rs..1000/- to be borne by the respondents. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award, both the parties have approached this Court. The respondents have filed the appeal praying to quash and set the same whereas the applicant has filed cross objection praying for enhancement of the market value to Rs. 800/- per square metre. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that only a narrow strip of land has been acquired for construction of road and that such a strip of land cannot have any potential for construction of building. She pointed out that there were mundkarial houses in the land bearing survey no. 125/1 and that a pathway was already existing in the said survey nos. 125/1, 126/1 and 126/4. The learned counsel further submitted that both the sale deeds as well as the valuation report produced by the applicant were rejected by the learned reference Court and therefore there was no material on record for enhancement of compensation. She contended that in L.A.C. No. 54/2002, a sale deed dated 19/6/1992 was produced and was considered for determination of the market value which sale deed, however, has not been produced in the present case. According to the learned counsel, the reference court ought not to have relied upon the judgment and order dated 13/7/2005 passed in L.A.C. No. 54/2002. She, therefore, urged that there is no evidence on record to establish that the market value of the acquired land was more than that which has been fixed by the L.A.O. She, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside. She further prayed that the cross objection be dismissed. 9. She, therefore, urged that there is no evidence on record to establish that the market value of the acquired land was more than that which has been fixed by the L.A.O. She, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside. She further prayed that the cross objection be dismissed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that against the judgment and order dated 13/7/2005, passed by the reference Court in L.A.C. No. 54/2002, First Appeal No. 283/2005 was preferred by the respondents before this Court and this Court by judgment dated 4/3/2011 has dismissed the appeal due to which the judgment and award dated 13/7/2005 has become final. He further submitted that the two sale deeds produced by the applicant ought to have been considered by the reference Court by making appropriate deductions for development, etc.. He further submitted that there was no reason for the reference Court to discard the valuation report prepared by AW.2, who had considered various relevant factors. He further submitted that the mundkarial houses were not in the acquired land, but in the remaining portion of the property which is vast. He, therefore, submitted that the question of dismissing the impugned judgment and award does not arise and on the contrary the market rate awarded by the reference Court is required to be enhanced adequately. He, therefore, submitted that the cross objection be allowed and adequate enhancement be granted. 10. I have gone through the record and proceedings and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 11. In Land Acquisition case No. 72/2002, two sale deeds, namely, one dated 5/8/1996 and the other dated 18/3/1996 were produced by the applicant both the sale deeds were discarded. Similarly, in L. A. C. No. 54.2000, the same two sale deeds were produced but were not considered. By sale deed dated 5/8/1996, Good Shepherd Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. purchased 1/3rd of the property “Lanco De Praias” admeasuring 8150 square metres and bearing survey nos. 128/6 and 128/7 of Cavelossim village for Rs. 29,34,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 360/- per square metre. It is a vast land bounded towards West by Arabian sea. By sale deed dated 5/8/1996, Good Shepherd Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. purchased 1/3rd of the property “Lanco De Praias” admeasuring 8150 square metres and bearing survey nos. 128/6 and 128/7 of Cavelossim village for Rs. 29,34,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 360/- per square metre. It is a vast land bounded towards West by Arabian sea. The second sale deed dated 18/3/1996 pertained to an agricultural property known as “Paine Xendo” admeasuring 16,497 square metres, converted into non-agricultural land, purchased by M/s. Prestige Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 1,30,67,200/- i.e at the rate of about Rs..800/- per square metre. This property had the advantage of road on the West as well as on the South. It was already lying in settlement zone and Five Star Hotel has been constructed in the same. In the vicinity of this property there were Five Star Hotels which are close to the sea beach. Both the sale deeds have been rightly discarded by the learned reference Court. 12. AW.2, Mr. Krishna Prabhudessai has prepared the Valuation Report which is at Exhibit 28 on the basis of the same two sale deeds dated 5/8/1996 and 18/3/1996 and, therefore, the said valuation report and the evidence of AW.2 has been rightly discarded by the reference Court. 13. Though the acquired land was a strip of land, however, the same was out of a bigger property. The learned reference Court has relied upon the judgment and award dated 13/7/2005 passed by the reference Court in L.A.C. No. 54/2002. 14. In L.A.C. No. 54/2000, the applicant was the Communidade of Cavelossim. The subject matter of the said case was the same land admeasuring 3300 square metres from survey no. 126/1 of Cavelossim village acquired under the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act and published in the Government Gazette dated 28/08/1998. In the award dated 27/8/2001, the learned L.A.O has mentioned that the name of Communidade of Cavelossim has been mentioned as the owner of the said survey holding no. 126/1, but one Francisco Rodrigues claimed ownership of 855 square metres of the said land. It has been mentioned in the award that the dispute along with the compensation has been referred to the learned District Judge under section 30 of the Act. Said Francisco Rodrigues is the applicant in the present case. 15. 126/1, but one Francisco Rodrigues claimed ownership of 855 square metres of the said land. It has been mentioned in the award that the dispute along with the compensation has been referred to the learned District Judge under section 30 of the Act. Said Francisco Rodrigues is the applicant in the present case. 15. In the said L.A.C. No. 54/2002, the applicant had produced one more sale deed dated 19/6/1992 and relying upon the same, the reference Court had fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 100/- per square metre. In the Memo of Appeal, the respondents have urged that the award dated 13/7/2005 in L. A. C. 54/2005 arising out of the same notification has been challenged before the High Court and the same having not attained finality could not have been relied upon by the reference Court. The Comunidade of Cavelossim had filed First Appeal No. 283/2005 against the said judgment and order dated 13/7/2005 before this Court and by judgment dated 4/3/2011, this Court has dismissed the said appeal. It is not the case of the respondents that the judgment in First Appeal No. 283/2005 has also been challenged. Therefore, the market rate of Rs..100/- per square metre fixed for the acquired land from survey no. 126/1 has become final. The same land admeasuring 3300 square metres from survey no.126/1 along with small portions admeasuring 240 square metres from survey no.125/1 and 18 square metres from survey no.126/4 is the subject matter of the present appeal and cross objection. In my view, the question of either enhancing the market value or reducing the same does not arise. The learned reference Court has rightly arrived at the market rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land. The reference Court has applied the well settled principle for determining the market value of the acquired land. There is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award as there is no infirmity in fixing the market rate. As such, no interference is called for. 16. In the result, the First Appeal as well as the Cross Objection stands dismissed. 17. The Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of accordingly.