JUDGMENT F.M. REIS, J. 1. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30.12.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 26 of 2005. 2. By a notification published on 31.07.2000, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as (the said Act) land belonging to the respondents was acquired at Volvoi admeasuring an area of 800 square metres for the construction of the road from Volvoi to Sateribhat. By an award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 29/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs. 200/- per square metre for the land acquired. By judgment and award dated 30.12.2005, the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Guru Shirodkar, the learned Government Advocate for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that there are no reasons at all given by the Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment to come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 50/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale deed produced by the respondents was in respect of the land sold at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square metre and the deduction which has been given of 50% should have been at least 70% on account of the dissimilarities of the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale deed plot. The learned Counsel as such, pointed out that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prashant Vengurlekar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel as such, pointed out that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prashant Vengurlekar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel pointed out that though there are no adequate reasons given by the Reference Court nevertheless, the respondents have produced sale instances of the plot d of land admeasuring an area of 510 square metres which is located at a distance of about kilometre, wherein the price was Rs. 100/- per square metre. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale deed is of the year 1999 and the notification in the present case was dated 31.07.2000 and. as such, there is no reason not to rely upon the said sale deed. The learned Counsel further submitted that the valuer examined by the respondents had valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square metre. The learned Counsel, as such, pointed out that there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre. 6. In support of his claim for enhancement, the respondents have examined Shri Permanand Bhandiye, who has stated that the land bearing survey No.18/1 was originally belonging to his father and that the total area of 800 square metres from the said land was sought to be acquired. He has further stated that temples of Shree Sateri, Shree Gajant Laxmi and Shree Ananta are within the range of 500 metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that three spice gardens are within 3 to 5 kilo metres from the acquired land. He has further stated that the acquired land is on the Savoi-Verem-Marcel main road and is free from tenants. The land is also leveled. According to him he has requested Shri S.S. Sukhthankar to value the land and the said valuer has valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. He has further stated that the acquired land is on the Savoi-Verem-Marcel main road and is free from tenants. The land is also leveled. According to him he has requested Shri S.S. Sukhthankar to value the land and the said valuer has valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. He has further produced the sale deed dated 15.02.1999 which is a plot of land admeasuring 510 square metres from the property surveyed under No.226/1 which was sold for the sum of Rs. 51,000/- and is located at a distance of one and half kilometres from the acquired land. He has accordingly claimed compensation at the enhanced rate from the Reference Court. In his cross-examination he has stated that the acquisition has been done for the construction of a new road and not for widening of the existing road. He has further stated that there are small kiosks close to his property. The next witness examined is Shivanand Shamrao Sukhthankar, who is a valuer. He has stated that the acquired land has good amenities and it is at a distance of 250 metres from the Volvoi town centre. He has further stated that there is a good access to the acquired land and the same is touching the main road. He has valued the land at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre. The said witness has been cross- examined. 7. On perusal of the valuation report, the said valuer has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per square metre, considering the potentiality of the land and the prevailing land value in the locality. The next witness examined is Rajendra Kamat on behalf of the appellants. He has stated that the land has been acquired for the construction of a road from Volvoi to Sateri-Bhat in Village Panchayat of Volvoi in Priol Constituency. He has stated that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly offered compensation for the land acquired and that the respondents are not entitled for any enhancement. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the acquired land is adjoining the Ponda Marcel road. He has also admitted that it is within the radius of 1 kilometre from the residential houses. He has also stated that there are 1 or 2 houses at a distance of 200 to 300 metres from the acquired land. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the acquired land is adjoining the Ponda Marcel road. He has also admitted that it is within the radius of 1 kilometre from the residential houses. He has also stated that there are 1 or 2 houses at a distance of 200 to 300 metres from the acquired land. He has also admitted that the primary school and secondary school is within the distance of about 1 kilometre from the acquired land. He has also admitted that at a distance of 590 metres is a bus stop and the existence of a temple in the vicinity. 8. The Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment on the basis of the sale instances produced by the respondents has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit AW 1/D as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land. No doubt, the said sale instance is in respect of a developed plot. The Reference Court though has not given adequate reasons to ascertain about the comparability of the land acquired with the sale deed plot, nevertheless, considering that there is no dispute that the sale deed plot is about 1 kilo metre from the acquired land, I find that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court for relying upon the said sale deed for fixing the market value of the acquired land. While determining the market value of the acquired land, the Reference Court has effected deduction of 50% on account of development charges. Considering that the land acquired was 800 square metres, the deduction effected by the Reference Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is not justified to contend that more deductions should have been effected for the purpose of fixing the market value of the acquired land. When there are no sale instances of the same village, the Reference Court can rely upon the sale instance of adjoining village for fixing the market value of the land acquired. When there are no sale instances of the same village, the Reference Court can rely upon the sale instance of adjoining village for fixing the market value of the land acquired. In the present case, there is no dispute that the acquired land is at a distance of around 1 kilo metre from the sale instance and about 250 metres from Volvoi centre touching the main road and having good amenities as stated in the valuation report and as such, the Reference Court was justified in considering the said sale instance for fixing the compensation payable to the respondents. 10. Considering the evidence on record the amount fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre cannot be said to be unjust or unreasonable or excessive. As such, no interference is called of in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the Reference Court has awarded 10% per annum under the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the said Act when the same ought to have been 12% per annum. It is clarified that the respondents would be entitled for statutory benefits under the provisions of Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the said Act, in accordance with law. 11. There is no merit in the above appeal and consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Subject to the said clarification the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.