M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. We have heard the learned Advocates representing both the parties.
2. The learned Government Advocate submitted before us that the enhancement from Rs. 33,000/- per acre to approximately Rs. 1,78,000/-per acre is extremely steep and that it is totally unjustifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Among others, he has demonstrated before us that the Reference Court has not given any detailed reasoning. We must be fair to the learned Judge that he has briefly set out the grounds on which he has enhanced the compensation.
3. Though, in keeping with the Supreme Court decisions we do not approve of the unit being altered from acre to square foot, the real issue before us is as to whether we are required to interfere with the enhancement or not?
4. The learned Government Advocate submitted before us that the Land Acquisition Officer himself has been very generous while fixing the compensation as the average of the sales in that area at that time worked out to Rs. 14,578/- per acre despite which he has awarded Rs. 33,000/- per acre and that in this background, there was absolutely no ground on which the figure could have been revised upwards. What is also pointed out to us is that the fact that the area is developing and that this potentiality is hardly justifiable ground for the extremely high enhancement.
5. The respondent's learned Advocate has submitted that the learned Judge has followed the decision in LAC No. 432 of 1994 relating to Sy. No. 109 acquired by the Government for the same purpose, i.e., for formation of Ring Road, wherein the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 4/- per sq. ft. The present land being virtually adjacent to that one the Reference Court has followed the same standards.
6. We find that LAC No. 432 of 1994 was the subject-matter of an appeal by the State in M.F.A. No. 4105 of 1996 and that the High Court has dismissed that appeal on 5-11-1996 and confirmed the order of the Reference Court. In the light of that decision, it would be highly improper on our part to go beyond the identical order passed in relation to the lands which are situated virtually next to Sy. No. 109. We do appreciate the fact that the learned Government Advocate did argue vehemently that irrespective of what has happened in the other case that he can independently satisfy the Court that the order of the Reference Court requires review, but this Court should not refuse to do so. We have earlier stated that it is not open to the State, once the order of the Reference Court has been confirmed by the High Court, to re-argue or re-open that very issue in relation to similarly situated lands acquired for the same purpose, because apart from the principles of finality it is necessary to lay down that the principles of fairness would require that similarly situated landowners who are parties to the acquisition must receive compensation on similar terms. It is not a question of legal bar, but more importantly an issue of propriety and an issue of judicial discipline which would require that there must be uniformity in relation to similar situations. In the light of this position, we consider it unnecessary to re-examine the entire question, which has already been concluded by the High Court.
7. The appeal, accordingly, fails on merit and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.