Judgment :- 1. The above Appeal and the Cross Objections, arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2000, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Judge was pleased to allow the reference and granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre. The State has challenged the said enhancement granted. In so far as the Cross Objections are concerned, the Respondent herein has filed the Cross Objections aggrieved by the fact that deduction of 50% has been made from the sale price mentioned in the Sale Deed which has been relied upon by the Respondent being exhibit Aw.1/C. The contention of the Respondent is that the market rate should have been Rs.60/- per square metre. The land in question has been acquired for the construction of right Bank Main Canal of Anjuna Bridge at Poriem Village. The Land Acquisition Officer, had awarded compensation at Rs.2/- per square metre. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the Respondent herein, had sought a reference to be made to the Court under Section 18 of the said Act. Accordingly, the Collector had made a reference which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Case no. 11/1989. The reference Court framed the following issue: Whether the applicant proves that she is entitled for price of land acquired at the rate of 60/- per square metre. Consequently, the enhanced value to a sum of Rs.10,56,000/-? 2. The reference Court, as indicated above, held that the Respondent would be entitled to enhancement at the rate of Rs.18/- per square metre and, consequently, the statutory benefits would be paid on the amount calculated at the said rate. In support of his case, the Respondent examined her Power of Attorney Shri Prabhakar Nadkarni as Aw.1, one expert/valuer Prabhakar G. Navelkar as Aw.2 and Minguel Fernandes, as Aw.3, the purchaser of the Sale Deed Exhibit Aw.1/B. The Appellant in support of its case, examined one witness Mr. P. M. Reddy and produced the valuation report exhibit Rw.1/A and Form nos. I and XIV, exhibit Rw.1/B. On behalf of the Respondent, reliance was placed on the Sale Deed dated 29.07.1984, exhibit Aw.1/C and Sale Deed dated 12.08.1985, exhibit Aw.1/D. 3. P. M. Reddy and produced the valuation report exhibit Rw.1/A and Form nos. I and XIV, exhibit Rw.1/B. On behalf of the Respondent, reliance was placed on the Sale Deed dated 29.07.1984, exhibit Aw.1/C and Sale Deed dated 12.08.1985, exhibit Aw.1/D. 3. Before the reference Court, it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the compensation of Rs.2/- per square metre for a large area of 17600 square metres having cashew garden and the land also being suitable for construction, was totally inadequate. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Appellants herein, that the land in question being in nature of a garden, the applicant would only be entitled for improvements and that the report of the expert Aw.2 cannot be relied upon as he had visited the site in question in the year 1993 when the acquisition in question was of the year 1985. In so far as the reliance on the Sale Deeds which have been placed on behalf of the Respondent herein, it was contended on behalf of the State that the Sale Deed in question is in respect of a developed plot and that there was no evidence on record to show that the plot concerned in the Sale Deed and the acquired land were comparable. 4. It has come in the evidence of Aw.1/Prabhakar Nadkarni, that surrounding the acquired land, at a short distance of 50 metres, there are residential houses, Government Primary School and construction activities are going on within a radius of one kilometre to one and half kilometre from the acquired land and that the facilities of light and water is available in the acquired land and there is also a river flowing very close to the acquired land. The said evidence has not been controverted by the evidence of the witness on behalf of the State Shri P. M. Reddy, who has also, in fact, reiterated what Aw.1 has stated as regards the existence of residential houses, etc. The expert valuer, Shri Navelkar, has also fixed the compensation of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square metre based on the capitalisation method. However, the said report has been discarded by the reference Court as the same was prepared in the year 1993 when the trees were not in existence. The expert valuer, Shri Navelkar, has also fixed the compensation of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square metre based on the capitalisation method. However, the said report has been discarded by the reference Court as the same was prepared in the year 1993 when the trees were not in existence. The focus, therefore, shifted to the two Sale Deeds dated 29.07.1984, Exhibit Aw.1/C and the Sale Deed dated 12.08.1985, Exhibit Aw.1/D. The Sale Deeds are in respect of plot sold from one property by the name “Sadachem Batulem”, situated at Paryum Village, where the vendors are the same. The larger property was converted into small plots and plots D and E were the subject matter of the said Sale Deeds. The plots covered by the said Sale Deeds are situated at Podoshem Village, wherein the acquired land is also situated. The Sale Deed, Exhibit Aw.1/C is of the year 1984, wherein two plots of 600 square metres were sold at the price of Rs.25,000/- each. The Sale Deed, Exhibit Aw.1/C, is of the year 1984 whereas the Sale Deed, Exhibit Aw.1/D, is dated 12.08.1985 and, since the Section 4 Notification in respect of the acquired land was issued on 14.03.1985, the said Sale Deeds would become relevant for considering the fixation of the market value of the land. The Sale Deed, Exhibit Aw.1/C, was referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the Award. The said Sale Deed is in respect of land admeasuring 670 square metres, which was sold at the rate of Rs.36/- per square metre. The land in question in the said Sale Deed and the acquired land as mentioned herein above are from the same Village Podoshem and though the land covered by the said Sale Deed is developed plot, the reference Court thought it fit to take the said Sale Deed into consideration in fixing the rate of compensation as the said Sale Deed was of the same contemporaneous period as the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The reference Court, therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the Sale Deed covers a plot of 670 square metres, whereas the acquired land was 17600 square metres and was at the relevant time having cashew growth, deducted 50% from the said Rs.36/- and, therefore, awarded Rs.18/- per square metre as the market rate for the acquired land. The reference Court, therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the Sale Deed covers a plot of 670 square metres, whereas the acquired land was 17600 square metres and was at the relevant time having cashew growth, deducted 50% from the said Rs.36/- and, therefore, awarded Rs.18/- per square metre as the market rate for the acquired land. Considering the evidence which is on record, the enhancement granted by the reference Court relying upon the said Sale Deed cannot be said to be unreasonable and, Therefore, cannot be faulted with. 5. In so far as the Cross Objections are concerned, the claim of the Respondent-original claimant is Rs.60/- per square metre. However, in the teeth of the documentary evidence which is on record in the form of the Sale Deeds produced by the Respondent himself, that too in respect of developed plots, there cannot be any enhancement to the extent as claimed by the Respondent. It is sought to be contented by Shri Ramani, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Original claimant, that the deduction of 50% from the rate of Rs.36/-, which is mentioned in the Sale Deed at Exhibit Aw.1/C, is on the higher side. Considering the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in respect of the deductions to be made on the basis of peculiar features like location, frontage, development, etc., the deduction of 50% in view of the fact that the land in question was a huge tract admeasuring 17600 square metres, having cashew growth, cannot be said to be unjustified. 6. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the Appeal as well as the Cross Objections. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Cross Objections are rejected.