Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/appellants in the above appeals. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they are so described in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006. 3. Both the above appeals challenge the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.07.2006 in Land Acquisition Case No. 42/1990 whereby a reference filed by the applicants was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification dated 18.02.1982, land admeasuring 2502 square metres from the property surveyed under P.T. Sheet No. 141 of Chalta No.1 of Panaji city situated at Miramar came to be acquired for the construction of parks, recreational and other development of Miramar area. After complying with the formalities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 an award came to be passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as “the said Act” ) whereby a sum of Rs.75/- per square metre was offered for the land acquired. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the applicants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.1000/- per square metre. By the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006, the Reference Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the applicants as well as the respondents/acquiring body filed the above appeals. 5. Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that though the applicants have examined AW2 who is an expert on comparative analysis of the sale instance had valued the land at the rate of Rs.565/- per square metre and the Reference Court as such was not justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre without examining the correctness of such chart. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the evidence of AW2 Mr. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the evidence of AW2 Mr. Bhobe and pointed out that all the requirements with regard to the dissimilarities with the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale instance have been duly taken care of while arriving at the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.565/- per square metre. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter has taken me through the judgment passed by the Reference Court and pointed out that the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the land acquired was in the prominent locality of Panaji city and was close to Miramar beach having all infrastructure facilities besides having pictorial view of the Mandovi river. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter has taken me through the findings of the Reference Court and pointed out that the Reference Court upon appreciating the evidence on record has found that the sale deed at Exhibit AW2/A was comparable to the land acquired. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter has taken me through the findings of the Reference Court and pointed out that the Reference Court has noted the price in the said sale deed at the rate of Rs.565/- per square metre and has given a deduction on account of development charges to the extent of 40% and thereafter a further deduction of 33% on account of largeness of the land. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once the deduction on account of development charges has been effected, the question of giving 33% on account of largeness of the land is totally uncalled for. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter submitted that though the Division Bench of this Court while fixing the compensation for the land acquired in respect of the same notification while disposing of First Appeal No. 89 of 2007 has accepted the market value for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.306/-per square metre nevertheless, according to him the appellants have produced cogent evidence to substantiate their claim that the market value of the land has to be fixed at the rate of Rs.565/-per square metre. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court wherein the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at Rs.306/- and Rs.300/-per square metre in respect of an area admeasuring more than 25000 square metres and 12000 square metres respectively. The learned Senior Counsel has thereafter taken me through the two judgments of the Division Bench of this Court wherein the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at Rs.306/- and Rs.300/-per square metre in respect of an area admeasuring more than 25000 square metres and 12000 square metres respectively. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as the applicants have produced more cogent evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement, the applicants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.565/-per square metre. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the impugned judgment be modified and the compensation for the land acquired to be fixed at the rate of Rs.565/- per square metre. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/acquiring body has pointed out that the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition and the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in First Appeal No. 89 of 2007 as well as First Appeal No. 95 of 2007 are pursuant to the same notification. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the said judgments and pointed out that this Court has fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.300/- and Rs.306/- per square metre and as such the question of giving any different compensation for the land acquired in the present case does not arise at all. The learned counsel further submitted that even the sale instance at Exhibit AW1/B produced by the appellants is considered, the compensation fixed by the Division Bench would work out to Rs.300/-per square metre after giving a deduction of 1/3rd on account of development charges. The learned counsel has brought to my notice the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 201 of 2000 wherein compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.200/-per square metre. The learned counsel as such submits that the appeal preferred by the applicants be dismissed and the compensation fixed by the Reference Court be accordingly modified. 7. 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 fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre ? 8. 7. 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 fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre ? 8. On perusal of the records as well as the material produced by the applicants and the respondents, I find that the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of First Appeal Nos. 95 of 2007 and 89 of 2007 has come to the conclusion that the compensation for the land acquired is to be fixed at the rate of Rs.300/- and Rs.306/-per square metre. This Court has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the said judgment, wherein it has been held that compensation which has been determined by the Court in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the same notification is to be fixed uniformly. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, in the present case it is not in dispute that the amount which was offered by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellants herein as well as to the claimants in the said appeal was at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. As such, it cannot be disputed that the infrastructure facilities were available to the land acquired within the same radius as those available to the land which was the subject matter of the said First Appeals. It is also to be noted that the sale instance referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 89 of 2007 is the same sale deed at Exhibit AW1/B which is heavily relied by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants for seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned Division Bench has examined the dissimilarities and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.306/-per square metre. In such circumstances, the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court can form the foundation to fix the compensation for the land acquired in the present case. The contention of Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel that the expert report of AW2 has to be relied upon to fix the compensation cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court can form the foundation to fix the compensation for the land acquired in the present case. The contention of Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel that the expert report of AW2 has to be relied upon to fix the compensation cannot be accepted. The said report is not after considering the dissimilarities of the land acquired and the sale instances which are developed plots. On perusal of the area which is the subject matter of the acquisition in the present case, I find the area involved admeasures 2502 square metres. The land acquired in First Appeal No. 89 of 2007 admeasures more than 20,000 square metres. As far as First Appeal No. 95 of 2007 is concerned, the land acquired admeasures approximately 12000 square metres. In such circumstances, taking note of the fact that the land acquired in the present case is much smaller than the land which was the subject matter of the said acquisition, 10% appreciation would be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. After giving such appreciation of 10%, the amount works out to Rs.330/- per square metre. To that extent, the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be modified. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) First Appeal No. 188 of 2007 is partly allowed and First Appeal No. 58 of 2008 stands dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006 stands modified and the compensation for the land acquired is fixed at the rate of Rs.330/- per square metre. (iii) Needless to say that the appellants would be entitled for the statutory benefits in terms of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law. (iv) Both the appeals stand accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.