1. By this appeal, the respondents no.1 and 2 of Land Acquisition Case no.123 of 1992 have taken exception to the judgment and award dated 10/7/2000 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa (Reference Court).

2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said L.A.Case no. 123/1992.

3. By Government Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (L.A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 7/9/1989, land admeasuring 2143 square metres from survey holdings no. 170/1, 170/8 and 170/14, situated at Goa Velha, belonging to the mother of the applicants, was acquired for improvement and black topping of the road Forgottem - cemetery in Village Panchayat of Goa Velha. By Award dated 28/6/1991, the respondent no.1 (L. A. O.) offered the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicants sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, in which the applicants claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square metre. The said reference made by the L. A. O. came to be registered as L. A. Case no.123 of 1992.

4. The applicants examined three witnesses namely Shri Bhaskar R. Porobo Sinari, the original applicant no. 1, as AW.1, Dr. Avinash G. K. Dhakankar as AW.2 and Narcinva V. Naik Panvelkar as AW.3. The respondents did not lead any evidence.

5. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court found that the sale deed which is at Exhibit 23 produced by AW.3 was suitable for determination of the market value of the acquired land. By making appropriate deductions in the price of the plot of the sale deed, on account of various factors discussed in the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 95/- per square metre. The applicants were also given all the benefits under the L. A. Act.

6. The respondents are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award and have filed the present appeal.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Amey Kakodkar argued on behalf of the respondents, whereas none remained present on behalf of the applicants.

8. Learned Mr. Kakodkar, has relied upon SubhRam and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another [(2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 444) [LQ/SC/2009/1935] ]. He read out paragraphs no. 11 to 14 of the judgment supra and contended that deduction of 60% ought to have been made from the price of the plot of the sale deed at Exhibit 23. In other words, he contended that addition of 10% on the ground of nearness of the acquired land to the National Highway should not have been made.

9. I have gone through the record and proceedings.

10. In fact, the applicants through AW.1 had produced two sale deeds, namely Exhibit AW.1/B dated 4/6/1991 by which developed plot admeasuring 363 square metres, situated at Goa Velha, was sold for Rs.96,000/- and another sale deed which is at Exhibit AW.1/C dated 25/11/1991 by which another developed plot admeasuring 340 square metres, situated at Goa Velha was sold for Rs.85,000/-. The learned Reference Court has not taken into account the said two sale deeds holding that the applicants could not prove them by examining either the landlord or the purchaser. In fact, there was no need to examine the seller or the purchaser. Be that as it may, in any case, it is not safe to rely upon the said two sale deeds since they are post-notification transactions.

11. AW.1, who is one of the applicantshas deposed that the acquired land could have been used for construction purpose and also for plantation of coconut trees. He has further stated that there are about 41 houses by the side of the acquired land and that the acquired land was adjoining Panaji- Agacaim road and is only about 10-12 metres from Goa Velha market. Even AW.3 has stated that the acquired land could have been used for construction of houses. It is pertinent to note that no suggestion has been put to AW.1 and AW.3 that the acquired land was not suitable for construction purpose. The acquired land is a part of the bigger property known as Forgottem.

12. AW.3 along with his wife sold plot of the sale deed Exhibit 23 which is dated 24/8/1988 to Smt. Vimal S. Naik of Neura. He has deposed that the said plot was admeasuring 520 square metres and it was sold to her at the rate of Rs.190/- per sq.metre. AW.3 has confirmed the contents of the sale deed at Exhibit 23 and has stated that he received the said price of Rs.98,800/- from the purchaser. The evidence of AW.3 reveals that he is acquainted with the acquired land of the applicants, situated at Goa Velha. He has stated that if the property sold by him is compared with the property Forgottem, the latter is more suitable for construction purposes and that the said property Forgottem is near to Goa Velha market wheres, the plot sold by him is at a distance of about 3 kilometresfrom the property Forgottem. AW.3 has stated that the said property Forgottem is at a distance of about 40 metres from the National Highway, Panaji-Margao, whereas the plot sold by him is situated in the interior and is at a distance of 2.5 kilometres from the said National Highway. As far as the acquired land is concerned, AW.1, the applicant no. 1, has stated that water and electricity facilities were available in the acquired portion and that there are schools and high school about half a kilometre away. He has also deposed that some offers were received by him for sale of the said property. However, as far as the plot of the sale deed which is at Exhibit 23 is concerned, according to AW.3 there was no water supply to the same, though there was street light available on the boundary of the said plot. AW.3 has confirmed that water, electricity and telephone facilities were available to the property Forgottem in the year 1988. The above evidence of AW.1 and AW.3 is not shaken in their cross examination and therefore, the Reference Court has rightly placed reliance in them.

13. The learned Advocate for the respondents has not contended that the sale deed Exhibit 23 could not have been used for determination of the market value of the acquired land.

14. The learned Reference Court has relied upon State of Goa V/s. Olga Seco Gomes da Costa [1998 (1) Goa L.T, 324], wherein this High Court has held that where the sale deed was of a developed plot, 40% of the price of the land is to be deducted with regard to undeveloped plot. That being so, the Reference Court deducted 40% from the rate of Rs. 190/- per square metre at which, the plot which is subject matter of Exhibit 23, was sold. The reference Court has taken into account that the acquired land was having a larger area, whereas the plot sold by sale deed Exhibit 23 was only having an area of 520 square metres. Since smaller plots fetch more price than larger plots, which proposition cannot be disputed, the Reference Court has made a further deduction of 20%. It has been duly proved by the evidence on record that the acquired land is closer to the National Highway by about 2.5 kilometres, as compared to the sale deed plot and this being a plus factor in respect of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court has added 10% to the price. Therefore, the total deduction that has been made is of 50% from Rs. 190/-, which works out to Rs. 95/- per square metre. In my considered view, the approach of the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted. Reasonable deduction of 50% has been made by the reference Court in the price of the sale deed plot which was a developed plot out of a sub-divided property, for reasons which have been mentioned in the judgment. In the case of Subh Ram, supra, it has been held that the percentage of deduction may vary between 20% to 75% depending on several circumstances. There is no good reason for saying that deduction of 60% has to be made from the price of the plot of the sale deed at Exhibit 23, in this case and there is also no good reason to hold that the deduction of 50% made by the Reference Court is perverse or unreasonable.

15. The impugned judgment and award is in accordance with the settled principles of law relating to the determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The value of Rs. 95/- per square metre for the acquired land is just and reasonable. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the respondents have not led any evidence to prove that the L.A.O has offered adequate compensation even after the applicants had duly proved that compensation offered was inadequate. In the circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award.

16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.