JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---The State has come in appeal against the decision of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 268 of 1991 given on 18-4-1994 whereby the learned Judge had increased the price by Rs. 15/- per square metre of the acquired area as against the rate offered by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 5/- per square metre. The learned Reference Judge was pleased to fix the market price at Rs. 20/- per square metre. 2.The land in question is situated in the interior of Taluka Canacona and it admeasures 9025 square meters. The property was to be acquired for Forest Staff appointed at Poinguinim. The notification for the purpose under section 4 dated 9-2-1988 was published in the Official Gazette on 18-2-1988. The price has to be determined, therefore, with reference to the aforesaid date. 3.The learned Reference Court Judge for this purpose has relied upon one of the Sale Deeds which were produced by the applicant, but that too, is not available to the original claimant/respondent because neither the vendor nor the vendee has been examined. 4.Once the Sale Deed in question is taken out of consideration for the aforesaid reason, there remains hardly any justification for raising the price from Rs. 5/- per square metre to Rs. 20/- per square metre. 5.At the same time, on behalf of the respondents, certain features of the land in question are relevant to consider whether there is any development potential or not. In this connection, it may be pointed out that it is situated abutting the National Highway and, therefore, has got real potential for being developed for residential as well commercial purpose, subject of course, to relevant building Rules. 6.This potential thus cannot be ignored and, in our opinion therefore, market price shall have to be raised from the one fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under the circumstances, we fix the market price at Rs. 10/- per square metre and the addition granted thus is Rs. 5/- per square metre. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed to that extent. 7.A side issue has arisen in the course of hearing of the arguments as to the payment of interest under section 28. Under the circumstances, we fix the market price at Rs. 10/- per square metre and the addition granted thus is Rs. 5/- per square metre. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed to that extent. 7.A side issue has arisen in the course of hearing of the arguments as to the payment of interest under section 28. This related to the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken in the year 1965 and the Notification came to be issued only on 9th February 1988 and was published on 18-2-1988. Per-se, it would appear that the claimant was deprived of the land and hence he should get interest in this regard. 8.However, in the Supreme Court decision relied on by the State in (Union of India v. Budh Singh and others)1, 1995(6) S.C.C. 233 wherein a similar situation was dealt with and the land was taken much prior to the issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, holding that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete Code in itself and therefore common law principle of justice, equity and good conscience being not applicable and also under the peculiar circumstances of the case, suit for damages for use and occupation of land by the State having become time-barred, the Apex Court has held that no remedy can be given or relief can be granted to the claimant. In other words, so far as section 28 is concerned, its operation will have to be confined on and from the date of the Notification under section 4. 9.However, in view of the peculiar facts before them, Their Lordships were pleased to observe that it would be open to the appropriate Government to consider the aforesaid fact-situation and grant whatever relief it could. 10.Keeping with this sentiment of the Apex Court, the State Government which is in appeal before us has also authorised the learned Additional Government Advocate to make a statement that when a representation is made by the claimant, it shall consider the same sympathetically bearing in mind the fact of the possession having been taken earlier. 11.However, the peculiar situation further to be notified in the instant case is that there is a Reference under section 30 pending before the Reference Court which is between the claimant/respondent and the Comunidade of Poinguinim. 11.However, the peculiar situation further to be notified in the instant case is that there is a Reference under section 30 pending before the Reference Court which is between the claimant/respondent and the Comunidade of Poinguinim. Obviously therefore, the claimant can make representation only to the extent he succeeds in the said Reference under section 30. The representation made by the claimant in the aforesaid eventuality will be considered by the State Government in keeping with the statement made before us and in keeping with the observations made in the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment. 12.So far as the Appeal is concerned, save and except for the above, it is partly allowed and the rest of the Order of the trial Court is confirmed. The amount having been deposited on pro-date basis, the Registry shall work out the amount that is now payable to the Claimant and the balance shall be refunded to the State Government along with interest that might have been earned on investment, if made after the amount was deposited in the Court. 13.The amount which comes to the share of the claimant shall be transmitted by the Registry to the Reference Court dealing with Reference under section 30 and the said Reference Court on receipt of the amount, shall invest the same for being disbursed in keeping with its finding in the Reference under section 30. Appeal partly allowed. *****