JUDGMENT:- Heard Mr. Bandodkar, for the appellants and Mr. Godinho for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the Judgment and Award dated II th December, 200 I, by which the reference sought by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) has been partly allowed. 3. By Notification dated 21st November, 1991, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose. An area admeasuring 1710 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 257/11 situated at Village Maina, Sodiem-Siolim belonging to the respondent was part of the acquired lands. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. metre. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award dated 15th July, 1993 and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.l0/- per sq. metre. 4. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation granted, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.250/- per sq. metre in LAC No. 1/7/1995. The respondent/claimant examined himself as AW.1 and two other witnesses, namely Anil Mandrekar as AW.2 and Mahadeo Waman Naik Tuenkar as AW.3, the valuer. The respondent placed reliance upon a sale deed dated 20.2.1991 by which an area of 463 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 237/11 was sold at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq. metre. The appellants examined Shri T. A. Achutan in support of their case. 5. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991, Exhibit A W.I/C and deducted 40% towards development costs; 30% for the largeness of the acquired land; 20% on the ground that the acquired land was undulated and sloppy;whereas the sale deed plot was levelled land and further made deduction of 10% on the ground that the acquired land was 1 km. away from the sale deed plot and had a house therein and Siolim-Maina road was close to the acquired land. The Reference Court, thus, arrived at a figure of Rs.40/- per sq. metre, after considering all deductions. 6. Mr. Bandodkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991 Exhibit AW.l /C which was in respect of a plane plot of land and the acquired land was sloppy land with cashew trees in it. metre, after considering all deductions. 6. Mr. Bandodkar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991 Exhibit AW.l /C which was in respect of a plane plot of land and the acquired land was sloppy land with cashew trees in it. The learned Counsel further submitted that the deductions made by the Reference Court are on lower side and, in any case, since the acquired land was not abutting the road, further deduction ought to have been made on the basis of the sale deed plot, since the sale deed plot was abutting a road on the southern side. 7. Per contra, Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. In view of the rival submissions, the following point arises for determination in this appeal: Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the compensation to Rs.40/-per sq. metre? If not, what compensation the respondent is entitled to ? 10. The Reference Court considered the evidence led by the parties which discloses that the acquired land was about 50 metres away from the road and the highway was at a distance of about 100 metres; Mapusa Municipal market was 3.5 kms. away from the acquired land and that there were residential houses within a radius of 50 to 100 metres of the acquired land. The Reference Court held that the sale deed plot was about 1 km. from the acquired land. 11. As stated above, the Reference Court, after placing reliance upon the sale deed dated 20.2.1991, and after making deductions referred to above, arrived at a figure of Rs.40/- per sq. metre. In my considered opinion, having regard to evidence led by the parties, the deductions made by the Reference Court on account of development costs, on account of largeness of the acquired land and the nature and location of the acquired land visa-vis the sale deed plot, cannot be faulted. However. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Bandodkar, learned Add!. Govt. Advocate that the sale deed plot had an advantage of a road abutting on the southern side and the acquired land did not have such advantage. However. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Bandodkar, learned Add!. Govt. Advocate that the sale deed plot had an advantage of a road abutting on the southern side and the acquired land did not have such advantage. In my considered opinion, on this ground, a further deduction of 10% is justified. Thus, the market rate of the acquired land works out to Rs.36/per sq. metre. Consequently, the market rate of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.36/- per sq. metre. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The market rate of tile acquired land is fixed at Rs.36/- per sq. metre. Needless to mention that the respondent is also entitled to all other statutory benefits under the Act. 13. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.