JUDGMENT Per U.D. Salvi, JJ.–This is an appeal preferred against the Award dated 25.2.2003 passed in the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being the Land Acquisition case No.47 /1995 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa, Goa made an offer to pay Rs. 5/- per square metre and Rs. 8/- per square metre as compensation for acquisition of the landed properties admeasuring 8,080 square metres of Survey No. 466/0 (part) and 1305 square metres of Survey No. 467/1 (part) respectively of village Latambarse, Nanoda, Tal, Bicholim District North Goa acquired for the construction of the Sanquelim Branch canal of Tillari Irrigation Project as per Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 3. Upon the application dated 25.08.1993 moved by one Mrs. Shanti @ Shantabai Gokul Nanodkar, the owner of the said landed properties and the predecessor-in-title of the present respondents, the S.L.A.O. made reference to the District Judge at Mapusa under Section 18 of the said Act. The owner of the acquired land the deceased Shanti @ Shantabai Nanodkar sought enhancement of the compensation offered in respect of the landed properties @ Rs. 200/- per square metre mainly on the ground of the proximity of various civic facilities. 4. No returns were filed by the respondents S.L.A.O. Mapusa, Goa and the Executive Engineer, Works Division, Irrigation Department in the said land acquisition case arising out of the reference made under Section 18 of the said Act. Amongst others, the prime issue casting onus on the applicant Mrs. Shanti Nanodkar to prove that she was entitled for compensation at Rs. 200/- per square metre of the acquired land, was framed. Constituted attorney of the applicant, one Mr. Mohan Nanodkar- son of the applicant examined himself and placed before the Referral Court some material documents namely Survey plan of the landed properties Exh. 37 collectively. Copies of the sale-deeds dated 14.11.1986 and 9.9.1988–Exhs. 38 and 39 respectively. The local villagers A.W. 2 Waman Calangutkar. A.W. 3 Tulshidas Phalari who were connected with the sale instance reflected through the sale deed dated 14.11.1986 Exh. 38 were also examined in support of the claim made by the applicant/appellant. The respondents examined Mr. Ashok Tavanappa Durgannavar, Assistant Engineer. Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corporation. 5. 38 and 39 respectively. The local villagers A.W. 2 Waman Calangutkar. A.W. 3 Tulshidas Phalari who were connected with the sale instance reflected through the sale deed dated 14.11.1986 Exh. 38 were also examined in support of the claim made by the applicant/appellant. The respondents examined Mr. Ashok Tavanappa Durgannavar, Assistant Engineer. Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corporation. 5. Upon appreciation of the evidence and submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, the learned Referral Court chose sale instance of 1988 involving the sale of 260 square metres of land @ Rs. 57.69 per square metres rounded off to Rs. 58/- per square metre under sale deed Exh. 38 as a basis for working out the market rate of the acquired land mainly on the premise that the said sale transaction was concerning a land in proximity of the acquired land. The learned Referral Court further observed from the evidence that the acquired land, being accessible with roads on two sides and situate in proximity of the lake and such other civil facilities namely health centre, school, Fair price shop, milk booth and police station, did possess building potential. Taking into consideration these factors, the learned Referral Court worked out the rate for the acquired land as Rs. 34.8/- per square metres in the year 1988 and considering the 10% increase every year on compounding basis further calculated therefrom the land rate for the year 1992 i.e. the time on or about the date of taking possession of the land as Rs. 48.3/- per square metre. This enhancement of the market value of the acquired land by the Referral Court gave rise to the present appeal. 6. Learned Advocate Rivonkar for the State/appellants argued that the learned Referral Court did not consider the vastness of the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale deed plots used as a guiding measure for computation of the market value of the acquired land. According to him, the learned Referral Court ought to have deducted 1/3rd of the market value of the sale deed plots before working out therefrom the market value of the acquired land as the value of the land which would otherwise be consumed in development of the infrastructure needed to promote the building activity for housing scheme. In his view, there was no discussion in the judgment to show as to how the magic figure Rs. In his view, there was no discussion in the judgment to show as to how the magic figure Rs. 34.8/ per square metre, the rate of the market value of the acquired land in the year 1988 was arrived at. 7. Learned Advocate for the State/appellants drew our attention to the unreported judgment of Division Bench at Goa in First Appeal Nos. 13, 14, and 16 of 2003, the SLA.O. and another v. Madhusudan Sadanand Joshi, delivered on 31.3.2008 wherein the value of the land acquired for construction of Left Bank Main Canal Tillari Irrigation Project in village Sal, Bicholim Taluka as determined by the Referral Court @ Rs. 25/- per square metre was confirmed. He further pointed out from the said judgment that the sale instances at village Kharpal were taken as a guiding measure for the determination of the market value of the acquired land at village Sal. He further drew our attention to the unreported judgment delivered by Single Judge at Goa in First Appeal No. 77/1999, S.L.A.G. and another v. Vasudeo Vishnu Vaze on 20.4.2004. In the said case, he submitted, the issue of quantum of compensation granted for acquisition of 6700 square metres of land at Survey No. 514 of village Latambarcem, Tal. Bicholim was assailed and the enhancement of compensation from Rs. 8/- per square metre to Rs. 17/- per square metre done by the Reference Court was set aside. These judgments, he submitted, are sufficient to show that the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court in the present case is erroneous. 8. For showing the location of the acquired land at village Nanoda vis-a-vis Bicholim, Carcepal, Dodamarg and Assnora villages, the learned Advocate Rivonkar for the State/Appellant initially placed before us a map drawn by Executive Engineer, Works Division VI, Bicholim, Goa. Learned Advocate Lotlikar for the respondent did not have any objection for reading into the maps for the purposes of enriching the understanding of the geographical facts concerning the acquired land. With consent, the learned Advocate Rivonkar for the State/ Appellant further highlighted the relevant geographical facts with another map drawn by the same Executive Engineer. Both these maps are marked for identification as 'X1' and X2' collectively. 9. With consent, the learned Advocate Rivonkar for the State/ Appellant further highlighted the relevant geographical facts with another map drawn by the same Executive Engineer. Both these maps are marked for identification as 'X1' and X2' collectively. 9. Submissions made on behalf of the appellants urging us to adopt the valuation of the land acquired for Tillari Irrigation Project situate at village Sal made by the Referral Court @Rs. 25/- per square metre and later on confirmed by the Division Bench at Goa with the decision in First Appeal Nos. 13, 14 and 16 of 2003– Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. Madhusudan Sadanand Joshi. (supra) were countered by the learned Advocate Lotlikar for the respondents with submission cautioning us not to adopt such straight jacket formula blindly for appreciating the facts peculiar to village Nanoda in the present case. He pointed out from the said maps X1 and X2 that the acquired land marked in red colour was skirted by rivulet (water source) on its northern boundary and its southern portion fell between two arms of the major district road connecting to the State highways at both of its extremities. He further pointed out from the said fact how incredible was the testimony of the respondents' only witness R.W. 1 Ashok Tavanappa Durgannavar, who ventured to deny the suggestion in the cross-examination that motorable road existed on the northern and southern side of the portion of the acquired land bearing Survey No. 467/1. He further pointed out from the said maps that the village Kharpal (Karpal) the sale instances from which had formed the basis for estimation of the market value of the acquired land in the aforesaid case of acquisition of land at village Sal, lay at the distance about 5.50 k.m.s from the acquired land in the present case. He further pointed out from the said maps that the village panchayat Latambercem was village group Gram Panchayat comprising of several villages one of them being village Nanoda. 10. One can easily find merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate Lotlikar when one goes through the Division Bench Judgment of this High Court– 2009 (1) All M.R. 186, State of Maharashtra v. Sahadu Aba Shete and another cited by him. 10. One can easily find merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate Lotlikar when one goes through the Division Bench Judgment of this High Court– 2009 (1) All M.R. 186, State of Maharashtra v. Sahadu Aba Shete and another cited by him. The Division Bench adverted to the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bhimabai Bhika Gondal, 2008(1) BCR, 219, in course of its discussion for adjudging the merit of sale instances of the lands proximate to the acquired land in the process of determining the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of the land acquired. The Division Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Bhimabai Bhika Gondal, (supra) quoted from the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Yashwant Kahanu Shirsat and others. (First Appeal No. 896/2005 decided on 19.7.2007) as under : "It is a settled principle of law that the land of adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by a clear dictum of the Supreme Court itself that wherever direct evidence i.e. the instances from the same village are available, then it is most desirable that the Court should consider those instances rather than relying upon sale instances of the adjoining land." 11. Taking clue from these precious words of the Apex Court, it would be proper to rely upon the sale instances from village Nanoda than those from village Kharpal. The learned Referral Court, in fact, correctly considered the sale instance from village Nanoda for determining the market value of the acquired land. This approach of the learned Referral Court, therefore, cannot be faulted. The judgments cited by the appellants. Therefore, do not find application to the facts and circumstances in the present case. 12. The learned Referral Court, however, has not elaborated the process of working out of the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 34.8/- per square meter in the year 1988. A question, therefore, arises whether it would be proper to remand this case to the Referral Court for exposing its mind as regards the process of working out the rate of the acquired land. 13. 34.8/- per square meter in the year 1988. A question, therefore, arises whether it would be proper to remand this case to the Referral Court for exposing its mind as regards the process of working out the rate of the acquired land. 13. Learned Advocate Lotlikar submitted that the learned Referral Court can be blamed for being miser with the words, but certainly it cannot be blamed of being arbitrary and capricious in the matter of arriving at the market value of the acquired land. He demonstrated from the evidence that the total area of the acquired land worked out to 9385 square metres and after deduction of 1/3rd of the said area therefrom for the purpose of rationalising the comparability between the smaller plot and bigger plot of acquired land with reference to the land left for development, the area available works out to 6257 square metres. He further demonstrated with mathematical calculations that after taking into consideration 10% increase on compounding basis every year, the market rate of the acquired land after appropriate deductions therefrom as aforesaid approximately works out to Rs. 50/- per square metre i.e. about 2/- rupees more than the one granted by the learned Referral Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Rivonkar for the appellants did not question these mathematical computations done by the learned Advocate Lotlikar for the respondent. Obviously, therefore, the decision of the learned Referral Court in fixing the market rate of 48.3/- per square metre with reference to the sale instance @ Rs. 58/- per square metre from village Nanoda, cannot be termed as perverse and/or fanciful. No purpose would, therefore, be served by remanding the matter to the learned Referral Court simply for adding few more words to its judgment for understanding the things which otherwise can be understood in light of the settled legal principles mathematically. Even the words of the Division Bench in Sahadu Aba Shete's case (supra) that the Referral Court has to be provided with certain leverage and freedom to indulge into certain amount of guess work while determining the market value of the acquired land would show how little the learned Referral Court can be blamed for the impugned decision. 14. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in the judgment and Award passed by the Referral Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.