Judgment : 1. Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P. A. Kamat, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. The appellants have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge(II), South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case No.36/1993. 4. The land which was the subject matter of the acquisition bears survey no. 200/11 of Nagorcem village and along with other land, the same was acquired for the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation tank at Chapoli of Canacona Taluka (Additional area). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short) was issued on 27/1/1989 and was published in the Government Gazette dated 2/2/1989. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO, for short) awarded Rs. 8/-per square metre in respect of paddy land admeasuring 18450 square metres; Rs.8/-per square metre in respect of bharad land admeasuring 220 square metres and Rs. 2/-per square metre in respect of nullah admeasuring 1100 square metres. Vide the application made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, the applicants claimed total compensation of Rs. 3,81,000/-including the cost of trees existing in the acquired land. 5. The applicants examined Shri Ganaba Dessai, the Power of Attorney holder of the original applicant no.1 as AW.1, an Engineer and Valuer namely Vikas Dessai as AW.2 and one Balkrishna Naik Gaonkar as AW.3. The respondents examined the then Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department namely Arvind Salelkar as RW.1. The applicants had relied upon the judgment and award of the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 90/1993 which was produced as Exhibit AW.1/B, a sale deed dated 25/9/1985 as AW.1/C; a sale deed dated 31/10/1988 as Exhibit AW.1/D and the valuation report dated 12/11/1995 prepared by AW.2 which was produced as Exhibit AW.2/A. 6. The respondents relied upon the acquisition plan which is at Exhibit RW.1/A, the letter dated 28/9/1998 addressed by the Town and Country Planning department to the Assistant Engineer (Irrigation Department) of Canacona as Exhibit RW.1/B, the plan showing location of different properties which were also acquired, as Exhibit RW.1/C and the judgment and award dated 1/8/1998, of the learned Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.130/1993 as Exhibit RW.1/D. 7. The Reference Court held that considering the location of the land and the fact that the acquired land was mainly under cultivable zone and also considering the fact that no amenities were available in the close vicinity of the acquired land, it can be safely inferred that the acquired land had no commercial potentiality. The Reference Court also found that major part of the acquired land was a paddy field and the bharad land was sloppy in nature due to which the said land could hardly be utilized for residential purpose. Since the Government had filed an appeal against the judgment and award dated 6/4/1999, in L.A.C No. 90/1993 and further since it was found that there were several other properties between the land which was subject matter of the said case and the acquired land, the Reference court held that the said judgment cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of the acquired land. Since the sale deeds at Exhibit AW.1/C and Exhibit AW.1/B pertained to developed plots suitable for construction purpose, whereas the acquired land being paddy field coming under cultivable zone and situated in the interior, the Reference Court also refused to rely upon the said sale deeds. It was found that AW.2 had evaluated the land on the basis of the said two sale deeds which are at Exhibits AW.1/C and AW.1/D. Hence, the Reference Court also held that the valuation report at Exhibit AW.2/A cannot be relied upon. 8. AW.1, in his deposition, has stated that the paddy field was cultivated in two crops and that they used to require about 5 khandies of paddy seeds and the total yield of both crops used to be about 9 kumbhs. He has further stated that 20 khandies is equivalent to one kumbh and that at the time of acquisition value of 20 kumbhs was about Rs. 30,000/-. The Reference Court found that the said evidence of AW.1 was reliable. He has further stated that 20 khandies is equivalent to one kumbh and that at the time of acquisition value of 20 kumbhs was about Rs. 30,000/-. The Reference Court found that the said evidence of AW.1 was reliable. She held that the applicants used to get annual income of Rs.13,500/-from the said paddy field land. Multiplying the said annual income of Rs.13,500/-by 20 and by deducting 1/4th part of the same towards the expenditure incurred, the Reference Court held that the net income works out to Rs. 2,25,000/-. Since the area of the acquired paddy field land was 18,450 square metres, the market rate of the acquired paddy field was held to be Rs. 12/-per square metre. Considering that the bharad land which was sloppy in nature, the market rate of the bharad land was fixed at Rs. 8-/ per square metre and no enhancement was given for the acquired nullah. All statutory benefits under the L.A. Act were also granted to the applicants. 9. The applicants have not challenged the said judgment and award. The respondents are aggrieved by the same. 10. Ms. Susan Linahres, learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that AW.1 had casually stated about consumption of paddy seeds and yield of paddy and about the value thereof, but no documents at all were produced by him, to substantiate the same. She, therefore, contended that determination of the market rate on the basis of such unreliable oral evidence was not proper. She, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set aside and the reference is liable to be dismissed. 11. Per contra, Mr. P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that in F. A. No. 220/2004, the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 9/6/2010 has maintained the market value of the land which was acquired from survey no. 200/4 and survey no. 201/1 of Nagorcem-Palolem village vide the same notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act issued on 27/1/1989 and published in the Official Gazette dated 2/2/1989 at Rs. 20/-per square metre, as was fixed by the Additional District Judge, Margao, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. He has produced before me a copy of the judgment dated 9/6/2010 in F. A. No. 220/04. 20/-per square metre, as was fixed by the Additional District Judge, Margao, in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. He has produced before me a copy of the judgment dated 9/6/2010 in F. A. No. 220/04. The learned counsel further submitted that for the same purpose of construction of minor irrigation scheme of Chapoli in Canacona taluka, further land was acquired vide notification dated 4/12/1989 published in Official Gazette dated 21/12/1989 and an area of 8125 square metres from the property bearing survey no. 200/2 of village Nagorcem-Palolem was acquired. He further submitted that in L.A.C No. 34/93, by judgment and award dated 27/1/2003, the Additional District Judge, Margao had fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12/-per square metre. Relying upon the judgment dated 9/6/2010 in F. A. No. 220/94, the learned Single Judge of this Court by, judgment dated 29/9/2011 in F. A. No. 187/2003, maintained the amount of compensation fixed by the Additional District Judge holding that the same is fair and reasonable and not excessive. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the judgment in F. A. No. 187/2003. He has relied upon the judgment dated 14/10/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in F. A. No. 63/2005 and F. A. No. 8/2005, wherein it has been held that the similar lands situated in the same village acquired under the same notification need to be given same compensation, so as to avoid disparity in payment of compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the acquired land of the present case is from the same survey no. 200 of Nagorcem Village and therefore similar to the lands which were subject matter of the F. A. No. 220/2004 and is acquired under the same notification. Hence, he urged that compensation of Rs. 12/-per square metre awarded by the Reference Court, for paddy field land and Rs. 8/-per square metre for Bharad land, is not liable to be interfered with. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record and proceedings of L.A.C No. 36/1993 carefully and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 13. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record and proceedings of L.A.C No. 36/1993 carefully and I have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents. 13. The short point that arises for determination is whether the reference court was justified in enhancing the compensation of the paddy field from Rs. 8/-to Rs. 12/-per square metre and of the bharad land from Rs. 5/-to Rs. 8/-per square metre. 14. The judgment dated 9/6/2010 of the Division Bench of this Court in F. A. No. 220/2004 reveals that the land which was subject matter of acquisition in the said case was from survey no. 200/4 and survey no. 201/1. The land which is subject matter of the present case before this Court is from survey no. 200/11. Thus, both the lands are from the same survey no. 200 of Nargorcem village. The plan Exhibit RW.1/C, produced by RW.1 and showing different properties acquired under the said notification dated 27/1/1989, published in the Gazette dated 2/2/1989 reveals that the acquired land from survey no. 200/11, touches the survey no 201/1. The notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act in respect of both the lands is the same dated 27/1/1989 published in Official Gazette on 2/2/1989. The LAO had awarded the rate of Rs. 8/-for paddy field portion and Rs. 5/-per square metre for bharad land. By judgment and award dated 2/6/2004, the learned Additional District Judge, Margao in a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/-per square metre, in respect of the acquired land from survey nos. 200/4 and 201/1. In the said F. A. No. 220/2004, the Division Bench of this Court has held that no fault can be found with the approach of the trial court and the market rate of Rs. 20/-per square metre determined by the reference court is reasonable. In F. A. No. 63/2004 and F. A. No. 81/2005, by judgment dated 14/10/2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the same land situated in the same village acquired under the same notification need to be given same compensation so as to avoid disparity in payment of compensation. 15. In F. A. No. 63/2004 and F. A. No. 81/2005, by judgment dated 14/10/2010, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the same land situated in the same village acquired under the same notification need to be given same compensation so as to avoid disparity in payment of compensation. 15. Where there are no sales of comparable land, one of the methods which may be used is to assess the annual income from the land which the owner has been deriving or is expected to derive and then capitalise such income by adopting a multiplier. The net annual income from a land is arrived at by deducting from the gross annual income all outgoings such as expenditure on cultivation, land revenue, etc. The applicants had produced two sale deeds but the plots of the same were found to be not comparable with the acquired land. The respondents had not produced any sale instances to enable the Reference Court to arrive at the true market rate. In such circumstances, the reference Court cannot be faulted for having taken into consideration the evidence of AW.1 on annual income from the acquired paddy field. The evidence of AW.1 in this regard, though is oral, is convincing. The reference Court has capitalized the annual income by a multiplier of 20 and has deducted 1/4th towards the expenditure. In my view, no fault can be found with the approach of the Reference Court. It should be kept in mind that ultimately, the market value offered by the LAO at the rate of Rs. 8/-per square metre is enhanced to only Rs. 12/-per square metre by the reference Court and the applicants have not challenged the same. 16. In the appeal memo in ground (g), the respondents have alleged that the learned trial Judge has committed patent mistake in holding that the net income works out to Rs.2,25,000/-after deducting 1/4th amount. I find that there is merit in the said submission. There is mathematical error committed by the Reference Court. The annual income has been held to be Rs. 13,500/-. On multiplying the same by 20, the same rightly works out to Rs. 2,70,000/-. But, 1/4th of this amount is Rs. 67,500/-and deducting the said 1/4th part, i.e. Rs. 67,500/-from Rs. 2,70,000/-towards the expenditure incurred, the net income cannot work out to Rs. 2,25,000/-, but it works out to Rs. 2,02,500/-. 13,500/-. On multiplying the same by 20, the same rightly works out to Rs. 2,70,000/-. But, 1/4th of this amount is Rs. 67,500/-and deducting the said 1/4th part, i.e. Rs. 67,500/-from Rs. 2,70,000/-towards the expenditure incurred, the net income cannot work out to Rs. 2,25,000/-, but it works out to Rs. 2,02,500/-. The area of the acquired paddy field being 18,450, the market value of the same would work out to Rs.10.97 rounded up to Rs.11/-per square metre. Therefore, only a slight modification is required to be done in the impugned judgment and award due to the mathematical error which has occurred inadvertently. 17. The Land Acquisition Officer had offered only Rs. 5/-per square metre for the bharad land and considering that the said bharad land was sloppy in nature, the reference court has fixed the market value of the bharad land at Rs. 8/-only and in my view, the same is fair and reasonable and cannot be termed as excessive. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment, order and award stands modified insofar as the market rate of the acquired paddy field is concerned and the same is fixed at Rs.11/-per square metre. Rest of the order of the Reference Court is maintained. 19. No order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.