JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is preferred by the original applicants against the judgment and award passed by the leaned Principal District Judge, Panaji Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 55/1996 dated 02.04.2011 by which the claim under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The applicants/appellants have preferred the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Initially, it was heard and decided by the Reference Court and the amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.15/-per square metres to Rs.23/-per square metre as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the applicants/appellants have preferred First Appeal bearing No.137 of 2003 which was decided by this Court by judgment dated 13.08.2010 and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for adducing additional evidence. After the remand, the Reference Court has recorded evidence and after having heard both the sides, dismissed the reference. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The Government of Goa, vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) dated 06.11.1991 published in the Government Gazette dated 07.11.1991 had acquired an area of 2700 square metres from the survey No.30 located in Queula Village of Ponda Taluka belonging to the applicants/appellants and it has been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of Ponda by-pass road from Farmagudi to Dhavali. 5. The Land Acquisition Officer ( L.A.O. for short hereinafter ) had fixed the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.15/-per square metre and the applicants/appellants had sought a reference to the Reference Court claiming the enhanced compensation of Rs.500/-per square metre. The then District Judge, by judgment and award dated 06.01.2003 partly allowed the reference enhancing the market price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.23/-per square metre apart from awarding the other statutory benefits. 6. The applicants/appellants pursued the matter before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation giving rise to the order of remand to the Reference Court for determination afresh with directions. 7. The applicants/appellants accordingly filed additional documents and re-examined applicant no.4 and an additional witness in support of their case while the respondents have not examined the witnesses in defence. 6. The applicants/appellants pursued the matter before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation giving rise to the order of remand to the Reference Court for determination afresh with directions. 7. The applicants/appellants accordingly filed additional documents and re-examined applicant no.4 and an additional witness in support of their case while the respondents have not examined the witnesses in defence. The applicants/appellants have produced on record the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 89/1998 and claimed enhanced compensation. Considering the evidence on record and upon hearing both the sides, the Reference Court has rejected the reference as referred to above. 8. In order to establish the claim of the applicants/appellants, the applicant no.4 has adduced his oral evidence and produced on record three sale deeds at Exhibits 8, 9 and 11. Exhibit 36 is the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 89/1998. A copy of the judgment in First Appeal No. 101 of 2005 is produced at Exhibit 44 regarding acquisition of the tenanted land under survey No.31/2 by Notification dated 25.09.1991. In addition to the above evidence, one Verenkar, AW2 was examined to prove the inspection and valuation and the report is at Exhibit 14, the plan at Exhibit 15. Another witness AW3 Puturaju, a Town Planner working in the Town and Country Planning Department was examined. AW4 Marathe who was the applicant in Land Acquisition Case No. 89/1998 was examined to prove that the acquired land is having similar amenities. As against this, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. 9. I have heard the arguments of Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants and Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. Considering the evidence on record and upon hearing both the sides, the following points arise for my determination : POINTS FOR DETERMINATION FINDINGS 1 Whether the Reference Court was No justified to dismiss the claim put forward by the applicants/appellants ? 2. What Order ? Appeal is partly allowed and the compensation for the acquired land is fixed at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre. 11. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants has initially argued that the evidence available on record is sufficient to hold that the market price of the acquired land as on the date of the Notification was not at least less than Rs.250/-per square metre. 11. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants has initially argued that the evidence available on record is sufficient to hold that the market price of the acquired land as on the date of the Notification was not at least less than Rs.250/-per square metre. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the contents of the various sale deeds at Exhibits 8, 9 and 11. Further, during the course of his arguments, he has pointed out that the learned Reference Court has not even considered the award at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre for the tenanted land under survey No. 31/2 which was adjacent to the acquired land and subject matter of the Notification dated 25.09.1991. According to Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel, this Court has confirmed the award at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre regarding the said land. 12. As against this, Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has argued that the applicants/appellants have failed to establish the market price prevailing at the time of the date of Notification under Section 4. The lands under sale deeds at Exhibits 8, 9 and 11 are different lands compared to the acquired land in reference to its potentialities. Therefore, such sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration. 13. I have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, from which it is seen that AW1 Kashinath deposed that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 150 metres from the Ponda City, 100 metres from Indirabai Dhavlikar High School, one kilometre from G.V.M. College, Tisk Ponda market at a distance of 200 metres. So also the bus stand and I.D. hospital are at a distance of 100 and 200 metres respectively. There are several houses adjacent to the acquired land and the civic amenities such as water, electricity supply and telephone facilities are available to the acquired land. Therefore, based upon the oral and documentary evidence on record, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants has alternatively argued that even the Reference Court has not considered the award at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre of the adjacent land of survey No.31/2 which was confirmed by this Court. The Notification of that land was before the Notification in the present acquisition proceedings. 14. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants has alternatively argued that even the Reference Court has not considered the award at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre of the adjacent land of survey No.31/2 which was confirmed by this Court. The Notification of that land was before the Notification in the present acquisition proceedings. 14. AW1 Kashinath, has admitted during the cross examination that the entire survey no.31/1 was tenanted to him and survey Nos.30 and 31/1 were agricultural lands. Therefore, the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Case No. 89/1998 to seek for the enhanced compensation is not helpful to support his case. AW2 Verenkar has inspected the entire land and for that purpose he had visited the said land and prepared the valuation report. He further deposed that the nature of the lands under sale deeds at Exhibits 8, 9 and 11 was similar to the acquired land in all respects, except that there were houses in the acquired land. In the next breath, he has admitted that there were no houses in the acquired area but in the remaining area. 15. On perusal of further cross examination, it appears that he has admitted that it was not possible to value the property in October, 1990 on the basis of the sale deeds at Exhibits 8, 9 and 11 as they were in respect of the developed plots with all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities and he had not come across any of the sale deeds in respect of the undeveloped plots for the purpose of comparison. So the evidence of Mr. Verenkar is not sufficient to consider the exact market price of the acquired land as on the date of the Notification under Section 4. 16. Another witness AW4 Marathe has deposed about the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 89/1998. During the course of his cross examination, Mr. Marathe AW4 has admitted that the acquired land was not level and that it was an agricultural land. So looking to the above admission, it appears that the survey No.31/1 appears to be tenanted land and survey No.30 appears to be an agricultural land. So admittedly, both the lands from both the survey numbers were not developed. Marathe AW4 has admitted that the acquired land was not level and that it was an agricultural land. So looking to the above admission, it appears that the survey No.31/1 appears to be tenanted land and survey No.30 appears to be an agricultural land. So admittedly, both the lands from both the survey numbers were not developed. Therefore, the compensation has to be determined and fixed on the basis of the award of an adjacent land by which the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre and it has been confirmed by this Court. In this behalf, a reference has to be made at Exhibit 44, which is a copy of the judgment in First Appeal No. 101 of 2005, in which it is observed at paras 3 and 7 thus : “3. The learned Reference Court by relying on another award of the Land Acquisition Officer, has awarded to the applicants compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/-per square metre. The award relied upon also pertains to tenanted land acquired under notification dated 25/09/1991 situated in the adjoining Survey No.31/2 of the same village. As already stated, that award was also in respect of tenanted land, which according to Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, was granted to the applicants in that case with the approval of the Government as required under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. 7. Admittedly, the land of award Exhibit 25 was adjacent land to the land acquired in this case, which was also otherwise mixed garden land. The Government paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/-for the tenanted land of award Exhibit 25 and therefore now cannot turn round and say that compensation for the land in question of the applicants should be less than the said amount. In the facts of the case, I find there is no merit in this appeal and, consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.” Since the award fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre has attained finality and the State of Goa has paid the compensation as per the order and directions of this Court, the same benefits can be extended to the similar land owners. The acquired land in another proceedings was regarding the land under survey No.31/2 and in the present matter the lands are bearing survey Nos.30 and 31/1. Therefore, it appears that it is a part and parcel of survey No. 31/1. Therefore, obviously all the advantages and facilities are available to both the lands. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that at least an amount of Rs.45/-per square metre can be awarded to the acquired land of the applicants/appellants. Therefore, the point nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 17. Hence, the following order : ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 02.04.2011 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The applicants/appellants are entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.45/-per square metre from the date of Notification till its realisation. (iv) The amount already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer shall be deducted. (v) Needless to say that the applicants/appellants are entitled for the statutory benefits under the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) & Section 28 of the said Act, in accordance with law. (vi) The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.