Judgment : This appeal and cross objections preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji dated 22.4.2002 enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.30/- per square metre to Rs.133/- per square metre. 2. The landadmeasuring 155 square metres from survey no.21/1 of Neura-o-pequeno was acquired for widening of old Goa -pillar road. Thus the land is obviously abutting the main road. The land is an orchard land where several fruit bearing trees grove and is shown to have residential houses between 59 to 150 metres from it. 3. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation on the basis of a sale deed dated 24.08.1988 at Exhibit AW1/B where a comparable piece of land was sold at the rate of Rs.190/- per square metre. After deducting 30% on account of development charges, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.133/- per square metre. Shri Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted that the land could not have been treated as having any development potential since it was by the side of the road and was in fact acquired for road widening. There is no merit in this contention since it is settled law vide State of Goa and another V/s Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others (2009)10 SCC 686 where the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 5 as follows :- “5. The contention that a land adjoining the highway should be treated as having no development potential (and therefore as land without much value except as ordinary agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to extend beyond the 40 m margin) as having potential for development, is illogical and cannot be accepted”. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. 4. While arguing the cross objection, Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the deduction on account of development charges was not at all warranted since the land had to be used for road widening and no development was possible on it. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal. 4. While arguing the cross objection, Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the deduction on account of development charges was not at all warranted since the land had to be used for road widening and no development was possible on it. However, as observed earlier in State of Goa and another V/s Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009) 10 SCC 686 , the Supreme Court has taken the view that the land cannot be treated as having development potential only because it was side of the road. Hence, this contention is liable to be rejected. Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Counsel further relied on the judgment in C. R. Nagaraja Shetty V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another (2009) 11 SCC 75 , wherein the Supreme Court set aside the deduction on account of development charges granted by the High Court on the ground that all that the acquiring body had to achieve was to widen the national highway and there was no question of any development. That decision was rendered in different circumstances and apparently the development charges were granted by the High Court even though no deduction ordered by the Reference Court vide paragraph 14 which reads as under : “14. As if this is not sufficient, when we see the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore in the reference proceedings, we find that there is no deduction ordered for the so-called development charges. We are, therefore, not in a position to understand as to from where such development charges sprang up”. 5. Moreover, it is not possible to ascertain the nature of the sale instance land from the said judgment and it was next contended by Mr. M. B. Da Costa that the Reference Court committed an error in not granting any enhancement from the sale deed year 1988 to 1992, the year of the notification under Section 4. There is substance in the contention since the Reference Court has ignored about increase in prices only because of the absence of any evidence on actual development at the time of acquisition. There is substance in the contention since the Reference Court has ignored about increase in prices only because of the absence of any evidence on actual development at the time of acquisition. This view is erroneous since a proximate land holder is entitled to have increase in land prices taken into account irrespective of any actual development on the property since the land prices increased irrespective of such development. It appears from the evidence led by the respondents themselves that there was an increase of about 8% per year vide evidence of one Jose F. de Albuquarque. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents are entitled to an increase at the rate of 8% per year from the year 1988 to 1992. Thus, the rate of compensation will be Rs.190/-less 30% deduction = Rs.133/- + 8% addition per year = Rs.180.94. The appeal and cross objections are disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly.