JUDGMENT:- By his appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and award dated 20.03.1999 passed by the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Land Acquisition Case No.95/ 1992. 2. Vide Notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (The Act for short), the Government of Goa acquired 5146 sq.mtrs. of land belonging to the applicants, bearing survey no.4/l of Cujira village, for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. for garden land and Rs.8/- per sq.mtr. for the area of pond and further granted compensation of Rs.33,355/- for the value of trees. The applicants sought reference claiming compensation at the rate ofRs.350/- per sq.mtr. In Land Acquisition Case No.95/l992, the applicants examined four witnesses whereas the respondents examined one witness. The applicant also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the value of trees, Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the compound wall and for reinforced water pond and also claimed severance charges. The Reference Court rejected the claim of the applicants for the trees, compound wall and for severance charges on the ground that the applicants had not led any cogent evidence to prove their claim. The applicants placed reliance upon sale deed dated 30.01.1984 (Exh.Aw.1/ B) and award dated 30.03.1991 (Exh.Aw.1/C) passed by the District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.33/1988. The land forming the subject matter of the award dated 30.03.1991 was in respect of the portion of land which was sold by sale deed at Exh.A w.1/ B. 3. In Land Acquisition Case No.33/ 1988, the Reference Court had deducted 25% towards development charges and granted 25% as escalation charges. The Reference Court while passing the impugned award deducted 40% instead of25% and granted escalation of. 10%. The Reference Court further made a deduction of 15% on the ground that the acquired property was at a lower level than Cujira - St. Cruz road. 4. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants at the outset placed reliance on the award passed by the District Judge, "North Goa, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case N 0.88/1985 dated 11.03.1993 and submitted that in respect of other lands acquired by the same Notification, the Reference Court has granted compensation at different rates, namely, Rs.200/-, Rs.150/- and Rs.112/ - per sq.mtr. and further submitted that the applicants are entitled atleast to the compensation of Rs.112/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the acquired land. and further submitted that the applicants are entitled atleast to the compensation of Rs.112/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the acquired land. In any event, learned Senior counsel submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have deducted 40% for development as there was absolutely no reason to deviate from the reasons given by the District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No.33/1988 in which the Reference Court had deducted 25% towards development charges. He further submitted that there was absolutely no justification for deducting 15% on the ground that the acquired property was below the road level and therefore, no deduction is justified on this ground. Mr. Lotlikar, further submitted that the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.88/1985 had considered heavy pressure on land on the outskirts of Panaji from 1980 and taken into consideration the said fact and had granted 25% escalation for one year and therefore, the Reference Court was also not justified in restricting the increase to 10%. According to Mr. Lotlikar, the acquired land of the applicants was fully developed agricultural land which was also fit for construction. He therefore, submitted that the applicants are atleast entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.112/- per sq.mtr. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the deduction development can vary from 35 to 60% depending upon the facts and circumstances. In support of this submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gafar and others Vs. Moradabad Development Authority and anr. reported in (2007)7 Supreme Court Case 614 : [2007 ALL SCR 2267]. He further submitted that the rate of price escalation varies from rural areas to urban areas and for rural area it is almost half the rate of escalation for urban and semiurban area. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5947: [2008(6) ALL MR 493 (S.C.)]. He therefore, submitted that no interference is called for by this Court with the impugned award. 6. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5947: [2008(6) ALL MR 493 (S.C.)]. He therefore, submitted that no interference is called for by this Court with the impugned award. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the judgments relied upon, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for me to analyze the evidence led by the parties in detail. The Reference Court has placed reliance upon the award dated 30.03.1981 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.33/1988 in respect of the land acquired by the very same Notification. The subject matter of the said award was a coconut garden which was found suitable for construction. In the said award, the Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 30.01.1984 which was executed in pursuance of the agreement dated 20.09.1982 at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court after deducting 25% for the purpose of development fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. in September, 1982 and thereafter considering heavy pressure on land at the outskirts of Panaji granted escalation of 25% for one year since the said agreement was dated 20.09.1982 and the Notification issued under section 4 of the Act was dated 16.01.1984. 7. In view of the above position, the award dated 30.03.1981 can safely be taken as the basis for fixing the market price of the acquired land. The Reference Court in the impugned order has deducted 40% towards development charges instead of 25% deduction which was followed in Land Acquisition Case No.33/1988. No doubt, the deduction varies depending upon various factors and there cannot be straight jacket formula for determining the percentage of deduction. Having regard to the land acquired and the location, I find myself unable to hold that 40% deduction was justified in the present case, more particularly having regard to the fact that in respect of other land acquired by the same Notification, the Reference Court had granted deduction of 25% towards development costs. Therefore, the value of the acquired land in September, 1988 works out to Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. I also find merit in the submission of Mr. Therefore, the value of the acquired land in September, 1988 works out to Rs.90/- per sq.mtr. I also find merit in the submission of Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel that the Reference Court ought to have granted 25% escalation and not 10% since in Land Acquisition Case No.33/1988 in respect of other land acquired by the same Notification the Reference Court had granted 25% on the ground that the prices of land had risen sharply from 1980. I find no reason to deviate from the said reasoning though ordinarily in urban areas escalation of 10% is granted, the same cannot be straight jacket formula in all cases. If in a given case, it is established or the Court takes notice of the sharp rise in prices, there is no reason to grant escalation even above 10%. In my opinion, the Reference Court having granted 25% escalation in Land Acquisition Case No.33/ 1988, the appellants are also entitled to esca1a~ion at the rate of 25%. However, the fact remains that the acquired area was at a lower level on Cujira - St. Cruz road and was not even. I therefore, find that the Reference Court was justified in deducting 15% on this ground. Thus, in my considered opinion, the value of the acquired land as on 16.01.1984 works out to Rs.90 + 22 - 16.8 = 95.20, which is rounded upto Rs.95/- per sq.mtr. Thus in my opinion, the market rate of the acquired land on the date of section 4 Notification was Rs.95/- per sq.mtr. and therefore, the applicants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.95/- per sq.mtr. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel that since in Land Acquisition Case No.33/1988, the Reference Court in respect of some other lands acquired under the same Notification had awarded the least compensation at the rate of Rs.112/- per sq.mtr., the appellants are also entitled to compensation at the same rate. It is well settled that when large tracts of lands are acquired by the same Notification, the compensation payable in respect of all the lands may not be the same. 8. I therefore, hold that the applicants are entitled to compensation at the rate ofRs.95/- per sq.mtr. Needless to mention that the appellants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. 9. 8. I therefore, hold that the applicants are entitled to compensation at the rate ofRs.95/- per sq.mtr. Needless to mention that the appellants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.