JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. R. Gawas, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 (a) 4(b)( i to vi) and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and legal heirs of respondent nos. 6 and 7 ( i to v). 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10.07.2007 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 120/2000 whereby a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) was disposed of by directing the compensation awarded to be paid to the respondents herein. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land admeasuring 475 square metres was acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing a sump pump house in the Village of Cuncolim of Salcete Taluka bearing survey no. 435/1 of Cuncolim Village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the said Act but however, the appellants as well as the respondents and some other parties put a claim to the compensation awarded and as such, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the said Act to the learned Reference Court. By judgment and award dated 10.07.2007, the learned Reference Court after recording of evidence has directed that the compensation awarded be paid to the respondents herein. 4. Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that according to the appellants they are entitled to 1/3rd right in the property which is known as 'Ecxirem' described in land registration office under No. 17765 of Book B-48. The learned counsel further pointed out that the property belonging to the appellants is a vast property having an area of 1,35,000 square metres and that the acquired land is a portion of the said property. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellants have examined AW1 who is the claimant in the proceedings besides an expert namely AW2 Mahendra S. Kakule. The learned counsel has taken me through the evidence adduced by the appellants as well as the findings of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all considered the correct basis on which the compensation has been directed to be paid to the respondents. The learned counsel has taken me through the evidence adduced by the appellants as well as the findings of the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all considered the correct basis on which the compensation has been directed to be paid to the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that there was enough material on record produced by the appellants to show that the acquired land forms part and parcel of the property belonging to the appellants. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is also a dispute raised by the appellants with regard to the compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired for the police station which according to him forms a portion of the property surveyed under no.435/1. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously relied in the award by Reference Court in such proceedings to come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded in the land acquisition proceedings was not payable to the appellants without considering that an appeal was already pending before this Court challenging the said judgment. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the judgment of the learned Judge and pointed out that the learned Judge has not given any reason to come to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled for the compensation in respect of the remaining portion of the land though this Court while disposing of First Appeal No. 88 of 2004 by judgment dated 15.02.2013 has remanded the matter for fresh adjudication before the Reference Court as the parties had not established the identity of the property by giving liberty to the parties to apply for the appointment of a Commissioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed that the property which is the subject matter of the acquisition in the present appeal is a part and parcel of the property belonging to the respondents known as 'Carojem'. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that though at the time of the acquisition, the survey records were not promulgated, nevertheless, in the promulgated survey records the names of the respondents are figuring. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that though at the time of the acquisition, the survey records were not promulgated, nevertheless, in the promulgated survey records the names of the respondents are figuring. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the names of the appellants have already been deleted and that all the properties have been identified by the survey authorities while coming to the conclusion that the names of the respondents are to be included in the occupant column. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the property surveyed under no.435/1 has been identified to be part of the property belonging to the respondents known as 'Carojem' which bears land registration No.11223 of Book -5. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as the survey authorities had already identified the property of the respondents which conclusively establish that the acquired portion of the property forms part and parcel of the property of the respondents, the Reference Court has rightly directed that the compensation be awarded to the respondents herein. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the suit filed in the Civil Court based on the title against the appellants has also been decided in favour of the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel has further pointed out that the learned Judge on the basis of the material on record has come to the conclusion that the acquired portion of the land forms part and parcel of the property belonging to the respondents and consequently, directed the compensation to be paid to the respondents herein. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the judgment of this Court relied upon by the appellants in First Appeal No. 88 of 2004 is not at all binding on the respondents as the respondents are not parties to the said proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel as such points out that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the application for intervention in the said proceedings came to be rejected, the respondents shall initiate appropriate proceedings to get their claim adjudicated with regard to the said acquisition proceedings. 6. The learned Senior Counsel as such points out that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel further pointed out that as the application for intervention in the said proceedings came to be rejected, the respondents shall initiate appropriate proceedings to get their claim adjudicated with regard to the said acquisition proceedings. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to direct the compensation to be paid to the respondents herein? 7. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court, I find that the learned Judge after minutely going through the evidence on record and the deposition of the parties has rendered a finding that the appellants have failed to establish their claim over the acquired land. The Reference Court has not considered the extent of the boundary as shown in the land registration document to ascertain whether the acquired land comes within the boundary claimed by the appellants or by the respondents. The learned Reference Court was also influenced by the fact that in Land Acquisition Case No. 68/88 the compensation was to be paid to the respondents without taking into consideration that the judgment passed in the said proceedings was under challenge before this Court. The Reference Court has also not examined the extent of boundary as claimed by the respondents to find out whether the acquired land comes within such boundary of the property as claimed by the respondents. Considering that there are no appreciable reasons by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment to come to the conclusion that the amount of compensation to be awarded to the respondents, I find in the interest of justice that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh. No doubt, the contention of Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that the survey records have also been promulgated and that the property claimed by the respondents has been identified and establishes that the acquired land forms part and parcel of such property is a matter which the learned Judge can always examine on its own merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law. The respondents are at liberty to file an appropriate application before the Court to produce such documents which according to the respondents support their claim to the compensation in the present appeal. This Court while passing the said judgment in the case of Rama Xanu Naik Desai (supra) has taken note of the fact that when the identity of the property is in dispute, the Court can always proceed under Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Code to appoint a Commissioner. The parties are always at liberty to file such an application to the Reference Court to appoint a Commissioner with that regard in accordance with law. 8. At this stage, Mr. Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Land Acquisition Case No. 68/88 which is the subject matter of the First Appeal No. 88 of 2004 be tagged with Land Acquisition Case No.120/2000 which is the subject matter of the present appeal. It is pointed out by Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the matters are before two different Courts. In such circumstances, liberty to the parties to move the learned District Judge, if so advised to transfer the matters before one Court, if at all pending. 9. At this stage, Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has pointed out that during the pendency of the above appeal, the respondents have withdrawn the amount on an undertaking that the amount would be refunded in case the matter is decided in favour of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 21.08.2008 shall continue to be in operation until the disposal of the reference before the learned Reference Court. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 10.07.2007 is quashed and set aside. (iii) Land Acquisition Case No. 120/2000 is restored to the file of the Reference Court. (iv) The Reference Court shall decide the said reference in the light of the observations made herein above. (v) All contentions of the parties are left open. (vi) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Reference Court on 28.04.2014 at 10.00 a.m. (vii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.