Judgment : All these four appeals are being disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Vide notification dated 24/10/1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ("The Act" for short), which was published on 23/11/1992 the Government of Goa acquired land admeasuring 1025 sq.metres bearing survey nos.11/1, 101/1 and 100 (part) for widening of road Navashi to Bambolim Siridao. The said land belonged to appellants in First Appeal no.157 of 2003 and First Appeal no.159 of 2003. The appellants in both the appeals (hereinafter are referred to as the claimants) have different shares in the acquired land. 3. The claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300/-per sq.metre. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 10/10/1995 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.5/-per sq.metre. The appellants in First Appeal No.157 of 2003 and First Appeal no.159 of 2003 sought separate references under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.300/- per sq.metre. 4. Pursuant to the Reference made by the Appellants in First Appeal No.157 of 2003, Land Acquisition Case No.16 of 2000 was registered. In the said case Guruprasad Sghripad Porobo Sinari (appellant no.2) examined himself and produced sale deed dated 16/11/1992 by which an area of 18990 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.200/-per sq,.metre. On behalf of the appellants in First Appeal No.154 of 2003 two witnesses were examined viz, Mr. Gopal Babshet, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D andMr. Audhut J. Bhounsule, Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. 5. Pursuant to the reference made by the appellants in First Appeal No.159 of 2003, Land Acquisition Case No.30/1998 was registered. In the said case Suresh Prabhu Sinai, AW.1 was examined on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer the same two witnesses examined in LAC No.16/2000 were examined. 6. The Reference Court in both the cases placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 16/11/1992 by which remaining portion of the land admeasuring 18990 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.200/-per sq.metres by sale deed dated 16/11/1992 and after deducting 70% from the said price fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.60/-per sq.metre. 7. Ms. 6. The Reference Court in both the cases placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 16/11/1992 by which remaining portion of the land admeasuring 18990 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.200/-per sq.metres by sale deed dated 16/11/1992 and after deducting 70% from the said price fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.60/-per sq.metre. 7. Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in First Appeal No.154 of 2003 and First Appeal No.155 of 2003 and for the respondents in First Appeal No.157 of 2003 and First Appeal no.159 of 2003 submitted that the Reference Court could not have relied upon the sale deed dated 16/11/1994 which was in respect of a large tract of land and as such, could not be compared to the acquired land. She further submitted that in any case since the acquired land was a nature of narrow strip could not have been compared to the plot in sale deed dated 16/11/1992. According to Ms. Mordekar, the land in the sale deed dated 16/11/1992 was sold for development purpose i.e. to carry out construction in the said land and as such, the acquired land could not have been compared with the sale deed land. 8. None has appeared on behalf of the claimants in the above appeals. 9. In view of the submission made by Ms. Mordekar and the finding given by the Reference Court the following point arises for determination in the appeals: Whether the market rate of the acquired land fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60/-per sq.metre is just and proper? If not, what was the market rate of the acquire land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification? 10. Shri Guruprasad Sinari, the appellant no.2 in Land Acquisition Case No.16/2000 was examined on behalf of the claimants. He relied on sale deed dated 16/11/1992 by which the remaining portion of the acquired land admeasuring 18990 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.metre. In Land Acquisition Case No.30/1998, appellant no.2 Suresh P. Sinai also placed reliance upon the said sale deed and on the sale deed dated 11/3/1993 by which an area admesuring 1,60,000 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.210/-per sq.metre. In Land Acquisition Case No.30/1998, appellant no.2 Suresh P. Sinai also placed reliance upon the said sale deed and on the sale deed dated 11/3/1993 by which an area admesuring 1,60,000 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.210/-per sq.metre. As stated above, the Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 16/11/1992 and deducted 70% and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.60/-per sq.metre. 11. It is well settled that for fixing the market rate of the acquired land the sale deed in respect of the remaining portion of the land affords the best evidence for fixing the market rate of the acquired land. It is pertinent to note that in the sale deed dated 16/11/1992 it has been mentioned that prior to the execution of the sale deed, the parties had entered into an agreement dated 2/3/1992. Therefore, it can be said that a part of the consideration was paid at the time of the agreement and it cannot be said that the sale deed dated 16/11/1992 was not a bonafide sale but was entered into only to get higher price in respect of the acquired land. The evidence of Suresh Sinari one of the claimants in L.A.C no.30/1990 discloses that after the execution of the sale deed an area of 6000 square metres remained with the claimants. In this factual background, I find it difficult to accept the submission of Ms. Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate that the acquired land was a strip of land and as such did not have building potential. In case of State of Goa Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others (2009) 10 SCC 686 , the Apex Court was dealing with a case where a long strip of land admeasuring two-thirds of acre adjoining highway was acquired for public purpose. The Apex Court rejected the argument made on behalf of the State of Goa that the said land did not have any potential for development. The very same argument that the acquired land could not be developed was advanced before the Apex Court, which was negatived. The Apex Court held that even in respect of such land the market rate could be fixed by comparing the same with comparable land. The ratio laid down in the said case would squarely be applicable in the present case. 12. The Apex Court held that even in respect of such land the market rate could be fixed by comparing the same with comparable land. The ratio laid down in the said case would squarely be applicable in the present case. 12. The above being the position, it is difficult to hold that the acquired land had no building potential and could not be compared to the land in the sale deed plot. 13. In my considered view the Reference Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon the said sale deed in respect of the portion of the remaining land. 14. In so far as the approach of the Reference Court in deducting 70% price mentioned in the sale deed dated 16/11/1986 is concerned, I do not find any illegality or infirmity having been committed by the Reference Court. The sale deed land was a large track of land whereas the acquired land was a small piece of land admeasuring 1025 sq.metres. Therefore, deduction of 70% made by the Reference Court cannot be faulted. 15. As stated above, none has appeared on behalf of the claimants in support of their claim to substantiate that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is inadequate. 16. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in all the four appeals. Consequently, all the appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.