Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals and the cross objections filed in First Appeal No. 42/2009, since they pertain to the lands acquired for the same purpose, in the City of Margao. 3. First Appeal No. 42/2009 and Cross Objections No. 16/2009 arise out of the judgment and award dated 29/04/2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007. 4. First Appeal No. 169/2009 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29/04/2008 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007. 5. Lastly, First Appeal No. 127/2010 arises out of the judgment and award dated 28/11/2006 passed by the District Judge - (3), Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002. 6. Initially, 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 17/09/1998 and at the concerned places, through the Mamlatdar of Salcete, on 30/09/1998, land was acquired for the purpose of construction and B/T of link road from Gaylin to Ana Fonte in Margao and this included an area of 410 square metres from Chalta No. 4 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 of Margao City, which was the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002. Vide award dated 09/11/2000, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre. 7. Subsequently, vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act published in the Official Gazette dated 04/03/2005, more land was acquired for the same purpose of construction and B/T of link road from Gaylin to Ana Fonte in Margao and that included land admeasuring 785 square metres, from Chalta No. 2(part) of P.T. Sheet No. 206 situated at Margao City of Salcete Taluka, which was the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007. The said acquisition also included an area of 300 square metres of land from Chalta No. 4 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 of Margao City, which was the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007. By award dated 17/05/2006, the L.A.O. awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre, in both the above cases. 8. The said acquisition also included an area of 300 square metres of land from Chalta No. 4 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 of Margao City, which was the subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007. By award dated 17/05/2006, the L.A.O. awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre, in both the above cases. 8. All the parties, not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., filed applications under Section 18 of the L. A. Act, which gave rise to the respective Land Acquisition Cases. 9. In L.A.C. No. 10/2007, the applicants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per square metre alleging that the acquired land was situated in the prime locality of Margao City, which is a commercial City of Goa, with all civic amenities and all facilities, available within the radius of 1.5 kilometers. The applicants alleged that their land was already developed and was accessible by road and it had high potential for construction activities and thus had high demand. They further claimed that their developed plots were severed. The applicants had claimed severance charges for land admeasuring 200 square metres at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per square metre claiming that the said land was rendered useless. The applicants examined applicant no. 1, Shri Desiderio Rafael de Piedade Menezes as AW1. The applicants produced the award of the L. A. O. dated 17/05/2006, pertaining to the acquired land, as Exhibit C-14; a sale deed dated 03/02/1999, executed in favour of M/s Grace Intensive Cardiac Care Centre, represented by its partner, who has been examined as AW2, as Exhibit C-15; an award dated 27/02/2007, of the District Judge-3, Margao, in Land Acquisition case No. 31/2002, as Exhibit C-16; a sale deed dated 15/03/1999, as Exhibit C-17; and a sale deed dated 14/05/2007 as Exhibit C-18. The applicants examined Shri Mahendra Kakule, a consulting Engineer and Government registered valuer, as AW2. The valuation report is at Exhibit C-20. They also examined Dr. Sunil Ghode as AW3. AW3 produced an agreement for sale dated 24/11/2004, as Exhibit C-22. The respondents did not examine any witness in defence. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land to Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. The claim for severance charges was rejected for want of evidence. AW3 produced an agreement for sale dated 24/11/2004, as Exhibit C-22. The respondents did not examine any witness in defence. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, enhanced the compensation in respect of the acquired land to Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. The claim for severance charges was rejected for want of evidence. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the respondents filed First Appeal No. 42/2009, whereas the applicants filed Cross Objections No. 16/2009. 10. In Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002, the applicants alleged that their property from which land was acquired, was located in the heart of the City of Margao, adjoining a hospital and also residential houses. They stated that the acquired land was flat land coming within settlement zone. They further stated that infra-structure was available for the purpose of development of the land of the applicants. According to them, in the vicinity of the acquired land, an hospital was constructed known as “Grace Intensive Care“, for which land was purchased in the year 1999 at the rate of about Rs. 2,000/- per square metre. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per square metre. The applicants alleged that their ingress and egress from the western side to the eastern side of the property would be affected and hence the damages suffered on this count ought to have been awarded. They also alleged that a compound wall will have to be constructed on both sides to safeguard the remaining portion of their property. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square metre for severance and for construction of the compound wall which would be minimum of 50 running metres. The applicants examined applicant no. 1 as AW1. He produced the sale deed dated 15/03/1999, as Exhibit 9-C; sale deed dated 03/02/1999 as Exhibit 10-C; development permission in respect of chalta no. 38 of P. T. sheet No. 206, as Exhibit 11-C; and Valuation Report of Valuer as Exhibit 12-C. The applicants examined the said Engineer and Valuer, namely Shri Mahendra Kakule as AW2; one Shri Nicolau Pereira as AW3; Shri Pascoal Barbosa Noronha as AW4 and Dr. Sunil Ghode as AW5. The respondents examined Shri Joaquim Fernandes, the Junior Engineer of P.W.D., Division VI as RW1. Sunil Ghode as AW5. The respondents examined Shri Joaquim Fernandes, the Junior Engineer of P.W.D., Division VI as RW1. He produced a sale deed dated 17/10/1996 as Exhibit 37 and Judgment and award dated 06/10/2004 of the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa as Exhibit 38. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 600/- per square metre. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the respondents filed the First Appeal No. 127/2010, whereas the applicants did not challenge the same. 11. In Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007, the applicants stated that earlier an area of 410 square metres was acquired from the same property bearing chalta no. 4(part) of P.T. Sheet No. 206 of Margao City and now an additional area of 300 square metres has been acquired, from the same property. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per square metre alleging that the L.A.O. failed to consider the price prevailing in Margao City. They stated that the acquired land was in the prime locality of Margao City which is a commercial City where there was heavy demand for land. The alleged that the acquisition was through developed plots of the applicants which were duly sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Authorities and also other authorities. They stated that in the vicinity of the acquired land there was a sale of land from chalta no. 30 of P. T. Sheet No. 206, sold at the rate of Rs. 1997/- per square metre, by sale deed dated 03/02/1999. The applicants examined the power of attorney of the applicant no. 1, namely Pascoal B. Noronha as AW1. He produced the sale deed dated 03/02/1999, as Exhibit C-14; sale deed dated 15/03/1999 as exhibit C-15; Judgment and award dated 28/11/2006 passed by the District Judge-3 in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002, as Exhibit C-16; the Award dated 17/05/2006 of the L. A. O., as Exhibit C-17; and sale deed dated 14/05/2007 as exhibit C-18. They also examined the engineer and valuer namely Mahendra Kakule as AW2. AW2 produced his valuation report as Exhibit C-20. They lastly examined Dr. Sunil Ghode, the vendor in sale deed dated 03/02/1999 as AW3. He produced an agreement for sale, as Exhibit C-22. The respondents did not examine any witness. They also examined the engineer and valuer namely Mahendra Kakule as AW2. AW2 produced his valuation report as Exhibit C-20. They lastly examined Dr. Sunil Ghode, the vendor in sale deed dated 03/02/1999 as AW3. He produced an agreement for sale, as Exhibit C-22. The respondents did not examine any witness. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 1,000/- per square metre. The respondents are aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award and have filed the First Appeal No. 169/2009. The applicants have not challenged the same. 12. Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007, submitted that the land admeasuring 640 square metres from the same Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 of Margao City was acquired for the same purpose i.e. construction and B/T of link road from Gaylin to Ana Fonte vide notification published in the Official Gazette on 17/09/1998 and the L.A.O. had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre and in the Reference, the District Judge enhanced the same to Rs. 1,265/- per square metres. He submitted that by judgment dated 06/03/2014 passed in First Appeal No. 92/2008, this Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,580/- per square metre. He submitted that since the said judgment dated 06/03/2014 pertains to the land from the same property of the applicants bearing Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 206, the applicants are entitled to receive compensation at the corresponding rate as compared to that fixed in First Appeal No. 92/2008. Relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another” reported in 2008(14) S.C.C. 345 , he urged that annual increase at the rate of 15% on compounding basis be given. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, in the said Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007, submitted that the acquisition concerned in First Appeal No. 92 of 2008 was old though it was for the same purpose and the judgment in the said appeal cannot form the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land in the present case. He submitted that the Reference Court had misappreciated the evidence on record and without there being any evidence, had enhanced the market value to Rs. 1,500/- per square metre. He submitted that the land was acquired to widen the existing road constructed through earlier acquisition. He submitted that there was no material for enhancing the compensation from Rs. 71/- per square metre to Rs. 1,500/-per square metre and hence there is no question of further enhancing the compensation. He, therefore, urged that the impugned Judgment and Award dated 29/04/2008 be quashed and set aside. 14. Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents in Land Acquisition Cases No. 26/2002 and 11/2007, submitted that the impugned judgments in both the cases are based on conjectures, without support of material on record. She submitted that there was no evidence to show that the acquired land had building potentiality. She further submitted that the land was acquired for widening of the road. According to her, therefore, there was no material to enhance the compensation from Rs. 71/- per square metre to Rs. 600/- per square metre in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002 and from Rs. 71/- to Rs. 1,000/- per square metre in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007. Learned Additional Government Advocate, thus, submitted that the First Appeals No. 169/2009 and 127/2010 be allowed the judgments impugned therein be quashed and set aside. 15. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in Land Acquisition Cases No. 26/2002 and 11/2007, submitted that ample evidence was produced by the applicants in both the cases and considering the Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 92 of 2008, the question of reduction of the market value, as awarded by the Reference Court, does not arise. He therefore urged that the said appeals be dismissed. 16. I have gone through the original record and proceedings in each of the Land Acquisition Cases and considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 17. The point for determination in First Appeal No. 42/2009/Cross Objections No. 16/2009 would be whether on the basis of the Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 92/2008, the compensation should be enhanced to match with that awarded in the said appeal. 17. The point for determination in First Appeal No. 42/2009/Cross Objections No. 16/2009 would be whether on the basis of the Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 92/2008, the compensation should be enhanced to match with that awarded in the said appeal. The point for determination in First Appeals No. 169/2009 and 127/2010 is whether the judgment and award of the Reference Court is illegal and arbitrary and is required to be quashed. 18. A perusal of the judgment dated 06/03/2014 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 92/2008 reveals that the same pertains to land admeasuring 640 square metres from Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 which was acquired for construction and B/T of link road from Gaylin to Ana Fonte in Margao. The respondents in the said First appeal No. 92/2008 are the same as in present First Appeal No. 42/2009. In the First appeal No. 42/2009/Cross objection no. 16/2009, further land admeasuring 785 square metres, has been acquired from the same Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 and both the lands belonged to the same applicants. In both the acquisitions, L. A. O. had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre. Indisputably, both the lands are bound to be exactly of the same nature since they are from the same Chalta No. 2 of P.T. Sheet No. 206 and belonging to the same applicants. In the First appeal No. 92/2008, this Court held that the sale deed dated 03/02/1999 which was consequent upon the agreement of sale dated 26/9/1998, was rightly relied upon by the District Judge for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. In the present cases before me, all the applicants have also relied upon the said sale deed dated 03/02/1999 and have examined Dr. Sunil Ghode, who is one of the partners of M/s Grace Intensive Cardiac Care Centre, which is the purchaser in the said sale deed. Therefore, it can be easily said that the Judgment in First Appeal No. 92/2008, which admittedly has not been challenged any further, would be the best basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land in the First Appeal No. 42/2009/Cross Objections No. 16/2009. 19. Therefore, it can be easily said that the Judgment in First Appeal No. 92/2008, which admittedly has not been challenged any further, would be the best basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land in the First Appeal No. 42/2009/Cross Objections No. 16/2009. 19. The said land, which was subject matter of First Appeal No. 92 of 2008, was however, acquired vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act in the Official Gazette dated 17/09/1998, whereas the acquisition in First Appeal No. 42/2009/Cross objections No. 16/2009, was under a similar notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act but published in the Official Gazette dated 06/03/2004. Therefore, there is a gap of about 6 years that is to say the notification in First Appeal No. 92/2008 is about six years prior to that in First appeal No. 42/2009. 20. In the case of “Mohd. Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer ” reported in 2009(14) S.C.C. 367 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that one of the perfect and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in the acquisition cases is the comparable sales methods. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared, must be similar in nature and potentiality. In the absence of sale deeds, the judgment and award passed in respect of the acquisitions of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated under Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Apex Court has further observed that undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise. 21. In the case of “General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.” (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semiurban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semiurban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.” 22. It is also well settled that the said annual increase has to be given on compounding basis. The Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court In the case of “V. M. Salgaocar Private Limited Vs. Union of India,” reported in [ (1995) 2 SCC 302 ], shows that annual increase at the rate of 10% should be made on compounding basis. In the First Appeal No. 42/2009/Cross Objection No. 16/2009, the acquired land is from the City of Margao. Therefore, in my view, annual increase on compounding basis at the rate of 10% would be reasonable for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land as on 04/03/2005. Therefore, giving annual increase of 10% to the value of Rs. 1,580/- per square metre, for six years on compounding basis, the market value of the acquired land as on 04/03/2005 comes to Rs. 2,799.04 (rounded of to Rs. 2800/- per square metre). I am, therefore, of the considered view that the respondents in First Appeal No. 42/2009, who are the applicants in Cross Objections no. 16/2009 are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,800/- per square metre, for the acquired land. 23. Insofar as the First Appeals No. 169/2009 and 127/2010 are concerned, the acquired land is from Chalta No. 4 of P.T. Sheet No. 206, of Margao City. Since the acquired land is from the same P.T. Sheet No. 206, which is involved in the First Appeal No. 42/2009, it can certainly be said that the said land should be similar to the acquired land, which is the subject matter of First Appeal No. 42/2009. Since the acquired land is from the same P.T. Sheet No. 206, which is involved in the First Appeal No. 42/2009, it can certainly be said that the said land should be similar to the acquired land, which is the subject matter of First Appeal No. 42/2009. Considering the fact that in First Appeal No. 42/2009, the compensation has been enhanced to Rs. 2,800/- per square metre in respect of the similar acquired land, and further since the applicants have not challenged the Judgment and Award, I am of the considered view that the question of reducing the compensation that has been awarded by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007 and in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002 does not at all arise. The First Appeals No. 169/2009 and 127/2010 are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 24. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (a) First Appeal No. 42/2009 is dismissed. Cross Objection No. 16/2009 is partly allowed. (b) The market value of the acquired land admeasuring 785 square metres from Chalta No. 2 (part) of P.T. Sheet no. 206 of City of Margao concerned in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007 is enhanced to Rs. 2,800/- per square metre. The applicants shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits. The amount already paid to the applicants, shall be adjusted. The award of the Reference Court stands modified to that extent. (e) First Appeals No. 169/2009 and 127/2010 are dismissed.