Judgment : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they pertain to land acquired under the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short). 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/1989, land was acquired for the purpose of strengthening and improvement of bund and defending the paddy field at Pato Kator at Chirculem Khazan at St. Cruz, Tiswadi Goa and this included land admeasuring 477 square metres classified as “paddy field” and an area of 123 square metres, classified as “bund” from survey no. 571/2 of St. Cruz and this land was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 15 of 2007. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) by award dated 02/08/1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre for the rice land (paddy field) and at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre for the bund. Not being satisfied with the compensation offered by the L.A.O., the applicant made an application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before the L.A.O. which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 15 of 2007. 4. The same acquisition also included land admeasuring 425 square metres from survey no. 571/1 of St. Cruz which was classified as “salt pan” and an area of 9 square metres which was classified as “bharad land”. The L.A.O., by award dated 02/08/1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metres for the entire acquired land. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the applicant made an application under section 18 of the L. A. Act which gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 14/2007. 5. In the reference application, in Land Acquisition case no. 15/2007, the applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre for the paddy field land and at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square metre for the bund. In the reference application, in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/2007, the applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/- per square metres for salt pan. 15/2007, the applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per square metre for the paddy field land and at the rate of Rs. 300/- per square metre for the bund. In the reference application, in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/2007, the applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 125/- per square metres for salt pan. The applicant, in both the cases, submitted that he had a farm house of stones, plastered walls and the roof of tiles, in the acquired land, from survey no. 571/2, which was constructed with due approval and was used for the purpose of storing equipments required for working in the salt pan and which was provided with a three phase electric connection. He submitted part of the said farm house, admeasuring 9 square metres, fell in survey no. 571/1 and that compensation for the same is claimed in Land Acquisition Case No. 15/2007. According to the applicant, no compensation was awarded for the same. He claimed that the said farm house admeasured 32 square metres and compensation of Rs. 30,000/- should be awarded for the same. He submitted that in the year 1980, under the award passed in respect of the land which is less than 1 kilometre away from the acquired land, compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre was awarded for paddy field land and at the rate of Rs. 65/- per square metre for salt pan. He stated that land prices have been increasing steeply for the last six years. The applicant had filed a written statement before the learned Reference Court, in both the cases. Here, it was stated that the land under acquisition was situated about 3 kilometres away from main road i.e. Panaji - St. Cruz – Bambolim road and there were many residential houses in the vicinity. The applicant further stated that the acquired land was about 1 ½ kms away from Panaji city and from G.M.C. Bambolim and about 400 metres away from Talaulikar Nursing Home. It was stated that the St. Cruz market, church and Government School were at a distance of about 1 km away and there was a football ground adjoining to the said land. The applicant alleged that the acquired land enjoyed infrastructural facilities like power, Government run portable water facilities within 130 meters from the acquired land and public and private transport facilities within 200 metres. Cruz market, church and Government School were at a distance of about 1 km away and there was a football ground adjoining to the said land. The applicant alleged that the acquired land enjoyed infrastructural facilities like power, Government run portable water facilities within 130 meters from the acquired land and public and private transport facilities within 200 metres. 6. Issues were framed in both the cases, as per the claim of the applicant. In both the cases, the applicant examined himself as AW1. He produced the award dated 11/03/1993 passed by the District Judge, Panaji Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 88 of 1985 as Exhibit 11 and inspection report prepared by Engineer Shri Mahendra Kakule. The applicant examined Shri Mahendra Kakule as AW2 and his inspection report was taken on record as Exhibit 17. The respondents examined Shri Peter Paul D'Souza working as Assistant Engineer in works Division – I, Sub Division–I, P.W.D. Government of Goa as RW1. 7. The learned Reference Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, in both the cases, held that the applicant failed to prove the claims. The references, therefore, came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the applicant has filed the above First Appeals No. 207 of 2009 and 01 of 2010. 8. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, produced before this Court a copy of the judgment dated 22/10/2010 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 151 of 2004 and submitted that the acquired land which was the subject matter of the said appeal is similar to the acquired land of the present cases and that the land was acquired for the same purpose vide notification published under Section 4 of the L. A. Act on 24/11/1989 and, therefore, the rate as fixed in the First Appeal No. 151 of 2004 be awarded to the acquired lands of the present cases also. Learned Counsel urged that the L. A. O., in the Award dated 02/08/1991 had classified bharad land, salt pan, coconut and pond as similar and had awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre. Learned Counsel urged that the L. A. O., in the Award dated 02/08/1991 had classified bharad land, salt pan, coconut and pond as similar and had awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre. He also pointed out that in the Judgment and Award dated 11/03/1993, in Land Acquisition Case No. 88/1985, the learned District Judge has referred to an award, produced as Exhibit PW2/A, in that case, wherein for salt pan acquired in the year 1977, compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre was awarded. He submitted that compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metres be granted for paddy land and Rs. 75/- per square metre be granted for bund, salt pan and the bharad land of both the cases. He urged that that would be the just and reasonable compensation. 9. Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, in First Appeal No. 207 of 2009 submitted that the acquired land was in the interior and there was no building potentiality for the said land and in fact there were water bodies which were not accessible. She submitted that the acquired land of the present case is not comparable with the land which is subject matter of First Appeal No. 151/2004. She further submitted that the report prepared by Engineer Mr. Mahendra Kakule was not genuine. She submitted that the applicant did not rely upon any sale deed and no material was produced by the applicant to show that it had market value of more than that granted by the L.A.O. She, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and award, is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and no interference with the same is called for. She submitted that the First Appeal No. 209 of 2009 be dismissed. 10. Ms. Bhandari, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, in First Appeal No. 1 of 2010, supported the impugned judgment and award. She also submitted that there was no building potentiality at all to the acquired land and no comparable sale instances were produced and land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 88 of 1985 was not comparable at all to the acquired land. She submitted that there was no salt pan in First Appeal no. She also submitted that there was no building potentiality at all to the acquired land and no comparable sale instances were produced and land which was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 88 of 1985 was not comparable at all to the acquired land. She submitted that there was no salt pan in First Appeal no. 151 of 2004 and, therefore, the acquired land is also not comparable with the land which was subject matter of First Appeal no. 151 of 2004. According to her, the impugned judgment and award was passed after taking into account all the material produced by the applicant and no interference with the same is warranted. She, therefore, urged that the First Appeal No. 01/20010 be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the original record and proceedings in both the cases and I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 12. There is no dispute that the learned Reference Court rightly rejected the claim of enhanced compensation for the said farm house existing in the acquired land, since no reliable evidence for the same was produced. The point that arises for determination in both the appeals is whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference filed by the applicant, in respect of the market value of the land and if not, what should be the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded for the acquired land? 13. In the First Appeal No. 151 of 2004, which was decided by this Court by Judgment dated 22/10/2010, land admeasuring 769 square metres was acquired from survey no. 566/1; 2030 square meters was acquired from survey no. 567/2 and 795 square metres was acquired from survey no. 567/3 of St. Cruz under the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of L. A. Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/1989, for the same purpose of strengthening and improvement of bund and defending paddy field at Pato Kator at Chirkulem Khazen at Santa Cruz, Tiswadi Taluka. The acquired land under survey No.566/1 and 567/3 were bund areas whereas land acquired under survey No. 567/2 was rice land. The L.A.O., by award dated 02/08/1991, which is the same award concerned in the present cases, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre for bund and Rs. 20/-per sq. metre for rice land. The acquired land under survey No.566/1 and 567/3 were bund areas whereas land acquired under survey No. 567/2 was rice land. The L.A.O., by award dated 02/08/1991, which is the same award concerned in the present cases, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre for bund and Rs. 20/-per sq. metre for rice land. Just like in the present cases, the Reference Court had rejected the reference filed by the applicant in the said case and, therefore, the applicants in that Land Acquisition Case No. 71 of 1997 had filed the said First Appeal No. 151 of 2004. This Court had relied upon the Award dated 11/03/1993, passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji-Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 88/1985. In the said case, compensation was fixed for different natures of lands therein at different rates. Most of the acquired land, therein, was tenanted land. For bund type of land as well as rice land, compensation at the rate of Rs. 112/- per square metre was fixed and for nallah and water bodies, compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre was fixed. This Court, by Judgment dated 22/10/2010, fixed the compensation for rice land at the rate of Rs. 60/-per square metre and for bund land at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square metre. The Judgment of this Court, as above, has not been challenged any further. 14. In the present cases also, the applicant had relied upon the same Award dated 11/03/1993, passed by the District Judge, Panaji-Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 88/1985. In Land Acquisition Case No. 15 of 2007, land which was paddy field as well as bund was involved and that was from the same place i.e. Chirkulem Khazen at St. Cruz, Tiswadi Taluka. There can be no doubt that the nature of the paddy field land in both the places is bound to be the same as also the nature of the bund is bound to be the same. Indisputably, normally, in respect of the lands under the same notification, the same rate should be awarded, so as to maintain parity, unless, of course, there are distinguishing factors. There are no distinguishing factors here, insofar as the nature of the land is concerned. Indisputably, normally, in respect of the lands under the same notification, the same rate should be awarded, so as to maintain parity, unless, of course, there are distinguishing factors. There are no distinguishing factors here, insofar as the nature of the land is concerned. In fact the land, in Land acquisition case No. 88/1985 was mostly tenanted land, which is not the case here in the present cases. Hence, the lands the present cases were better placed. It is seen that the L.A.O. himself in his award dated 02/08/1991 had classified bharad land, salt pan, coconut land and pond as similar and had awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 30/-per square metre. For bund also the L.A.O. had awarded the same compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/-per square metre. Therefore, it can be easily said that the land which is bund should be taken as similar to the bharad land, salt pan or coconut land. In First Appeal No. 151 of 2004, this Court partly allowed the said appeal and fixed the compensation at the rate Rs. 60/-per square metre for paddy land and at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square for bund. Hence, the applicant, in my considered view is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 60//- per square metre for rice land (paddy field) and Rs. 75/-per square metre for bund, salt pan and bharad land. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 15. Hence, both the appeals are partly allowed. (a) In Land Acquisition Case No. 15/2007, the market value of the acquired land, which is paddy land, admeasuring 477 square metres is fixed at Rs. 60/-per square metres and of the acquired land, which is bund, admeasuring 123 square metres, is fixed at Rs. 75/- per square metre. (b) In Land Acquisition case No. 14/2007, the market value of the acquired land, which is salt pan, admeasuring 425 square metres, and of the acquired land, which is bharad land, admeasuring 9 square metres, is fixed at Rs. 75/- per square metre. (c) The impugned Judgments and Awards in both the cases stand modified accordingly, to that extent, with other reliefs remaining intact. 16. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.