Judgment 1. Both the above appeals are directed against the Judgment and Award, dated 31/10/2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji (Reference Court), in Land Acquisition Case No. 76 of 1998. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of Land Acquisition Case No. 76 of 1998. 3. Facts giving rise to the appeal, in short, may be stated as under: Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L. A. Act”, for short) published in the Official Gazette dated 07/01/1991, Government acquired land for the purpose of improvement and B/T of Parampoi road upto Atchutwada in Ponda Taluka and this included a portion of the land admeasuring 700 square metres from survey holding number 505/1 of Village Marcaim, which belonged to the applicants. 4. By Award dated 30/07/1993, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/-per square metre to the acquired land. The original applicant, not being satisfied with the said offer, sought reference under section 18 of the L. A. Act claiming enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/-per square metre and that gave rise to the L. A. Case No. 76/98. 5. The Original Applicant examined himself as AW-1, Ms. Maria Vaz, daughter of AW-1 as AW-2 and a registered Valuer and Engineer namely Shri Vikas Dessai as AW-3. The respondents examined the Assistant Engineer of PWD, Division 18, Ponda, as RW-1. 6. The learned Reference Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that since the acquired land is a strip of land abutting the existing public road/ path, the same could not have been used/ developed for the building purpose. The Reference Court considered two Sale Deeds: one dated 25/07/1998 which is at Exhibit AW-1/B and the other dated 24/03/1998 which is at Exhibit AW-1/C and took the average of price of both the sale deeds at Rs. 70/-per square metre and deducted 65% from that price on the ground that the acquired land is a strip of the land, not fit for construction and fixed market value at the rate of Rs. 25/-per square metre. 7. The applicants have filed the appeal claiming enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/-per square metre and deducted 65% from that price on the ground that the acquired land is a strip of the land, not fit for construction and fixed market value at the rate of Rs. 25/-per square metre. 7. The applicants have filed the appeal claiming enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/-per square metre whereas the respondents have filed the appeal for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Award to bring down the market value to that which is awarded by the L.A.O. 8. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, the learned counsel, argued on behalf of the applicants whereas Shri Amey Kakodkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, argued on behalf of the respondents. 9. Perused the entire record and proceedings. 10. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants, argued that the acquired land was in a settlement zone and had special potentialities since it was by the side of the river Zuari and close to the Madkaim Industrial Estate and had scenic beauty. He further contended that though the acquired land was a narrow strip of land it was a part of the bigger property and hence could have been used as F.A.R. He therefore contended that finding of the Reference Court to the effect that since the acquired land is a strip of land abutting the existing public road/ path, the same could not have been used/ developed for the building purpose is an error committed by the Reference Court. He further argued that there was no need to consider average of two Sale Deeds since a proximate transaction was available. According to Shri Usgaonkar nothing less than Rs. 80/-per square metre, which is the price of the plot of the sale deed Exhibit AW-2/B could have been granted. He has relied upon “Thakarsibhai Devjibhai Vs Executive Engineer, Gujarat” ( AIR 2001 SC 2424 ). 11. Per contra, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents, vehemently argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the similarity of the sale deed plots with the acquired land and that the sale deeds have been just thrust upon the Court by AW-2 without leading any evidence about comparability. 11. Per contra, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents, vehemently argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the similarity of the sale deed plots with the acquired land and that the sale deeds have been just thrust upon the Court by AW-2 without leading any evidence about comparability. He further argued that the sale deed which is at Exhibit AW-2/B pertains to a very small plot admeasuring 25 square metres whereas the other sale deed in Exhibit AW-2/C pertains to a plot purchased by Mundkar. According to Shri Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, there were special considerations in both the sale deeds and hence they are not worth to be considered. He argued that the applicant did not examine the purchaser of the plot of the sale deed Exhibit AW-2/B to explain as to why he needed such a very small plot. It is also pointed out by learned Shri Kakodkar that the Mundkar who is the purchaser of the plot of other sale deed at Exhibit AW-2/C has also not been examined. In far as the third sale deed which has been produced by Aw-2 and relied upon by AW-3 which is dated 24/01/1991 and where the rate was Rs. 250/-per square metre, is concerned, he questioned as to how could the rate increase so much within three years as prior to that in the same village, the rate was Rs. 50/-to Rs. 80/-per square metre. He pointed out that this is a post notification sale deed and that it is situated at Priol. He contended that, therefore, the same should not be considered. According to Shri Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, in the absence of evidence, the court could not have fixed any price and therefore there was no reason for awarding market price of Rs. 25/-per square metre, which has been granted by the learned Reference Court. He has placed reliance in “General Manager, Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel” [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 )]. 12. Perused the entire record and proceedings. 13. The point that arises for determination is as to what is the proper market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act. 14. 12. Perused the entire record and proceedings. 13. The point that arises for determination is as to what is the proper market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act. 14. I fully agree with the contention of the learned Advocate Shri S. Usgaonkar that the learned Reference Court has erred in holding that since the acquired land is a strip of land abutting existing public road/path, the same could not have been used/developed for the building purpose. Since the deduction of 65% in the price of sale deed plot has been made by the Reference Court, on the ground that the acquired land is a narrow strip abutting the road and thus could not be used for construction, the market value determined is bound to be erroneous. Admittedly, the acquired land is a part of the bigger property known as Parampoi Thikan-Voz or Tela-Khol, belonging to the applicants and the value of the acquired land has to be determined by merging it to the remaining part of the said property. In the case of “State of Goa and another v/s. Gopal Baburao Gaudo” [ (2009) 10 SCC 686 ], a narrow strip of land which fell within 40 metres of margin from the centre of highway where constructions were prohibited, was acquired. It was contended that as the acquired land could not be used for construction, the land had to be considered as not having any development potential. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that such a strip of land adjoining the highway cannot be treated as a land without value or without any potential for development, merely on the ground that the law relating to highways prohibited construction on either side of the highway, up to a depth of 40 metres from centre of highway. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that potential of such land could be realised by annexing or merging said strip of land with land to its rear and in that event, the strip of land would become the “access” to the rear side land from the main road and would also become the frontage of the aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value of rear site land, as also creating a potential for its own use. In the present case also the acquired land, which is on either side of the existing road, is a part of the bigger property, belonging to the applicants and therefore the same had to be considered after its merger with the land to its rear, on either side. As has been argued by Shri Usgaonkar, learned advocate, for the applicants, the said strip could have been used as F.A.R. Therefore, deduction of 65% on the ground, as stated by the Reference Court, does not appear, to my mind, to be proper. 15. There is no dispute about the good locality of the acquired land. It is situated on the bank of river Zuari and at higher altitude. The evidence on record further reveals that the acquired land was within residential locality and had all the amenities such as school, market, bank, etc. within a radius of 1.5 Kilometres. The property of the applicants had building potentialities and could be used for residential as well as commercial purpose. AW-3, Shri Vikas Dessai, the expert witness, has stated that the property could also be used as a tourist spot, considering the location of the land. Therefore, it can certainly be said that the acquired land was a part of the bigger property, which was situated in a good locality, having good potentialities. 16. AW-2 has produced three sale deeds. One of them is dated 24/1/1991 which is at Exhibit AW-2/A. The Reference Court does not appear to have gone through the said sale deed. The Reference Court has observed in paragraph 8 of the Judgment that by this sale deed a plot of land admeasuring 450 square metres was sold @ 350/-per square metre. This is not correct. In fact, a plot admeasuring 400 square metres has been sold for Rs.1,00,000/-that is at the rate of Rs. 250/-per square metre. A perusal of the said sale deed further reveals that the same pertains to the plot along with the house and trees standing therein and it is bounded on the east by public road and shop and on all remaining three sides by shops. This sale deed plot is about 5 Kilometres away from the acquired land and is situated at Priol. The value of the house and trees standing in the sale deed plot is not known. This sale deed plot is about 5 Kilometres away from the acquired land and is situated at Priol. The value of the house and trees standing in the sale deed plot is not known. Therefore, the sale deed at Exhibit AW-2/A cannot at all be considered for determination of market value of the acquired land. 17. Another sale deed produced by AW-2 is dated 24/03/1988 (AW-1/C), by which a plot admeasuring 290 square metres has been sold for Rs. 15,000/-that is at the rate of about Rs. 52/-per square metre. This sale deed was executed about 3 years prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act, in respect of the acquired land of the present case and there was a Mundkarial house of the purchaser in this land and it was about 1.5 Kilometres away from the acquired land. In my view, this sale deed is also not a comparable instance. 18. The last sale deed produced by AW.2 is dated 25/7/1990 at Exhibit AW-2/B, by which a plot of land admeasuring 25 square metres, was sold for Rs. 2000/-that is at the rate of Rs. 80/-per square metre. This plot is situated at Madkai where the acquired land is situated and AW-2 has stated that the nature of the land is Bharad type and is situated only at a distance of one Kilometre from the acquired land. The date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act in the present case is 7/1/1991. Therefore, the transaction of the sale deed at Exhibit AW-1/B is less than six months prior to the date of section 4 notification. This is the closest plot from the acquired land, as compared to the plots of other sale deeds. In her cross-examination, AW-2 has denied the suggestion that the nature of the sale deed land and of the acquired land are not similar. The above means that according to AW-2, the nature of the sale deed land is similar to that of the acquired land. RW-1, though, has stated that he had inspected the acquire land, however, does not speak about its nature. Hence, this sale deed (Exhibit AW-2/B) should be considered as the best evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The contention of Mr. RW-1, though, has stated that he had inspected the acquire land, however, does not speak about its nature. Hence, this sale deed (Exhibit AW-2/B) should be considered as the best evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The contention of Mr. A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate, that the reason for purchasing a very small plot of area of 25 square metres, vide the said sale deed Exhibit AW-2/B, must be some special reason which is not known, has no substance because there is nothing on record to suggest that this plot was purchased on account of some special value to the purchaser. No doubt, the area of the plot is small as compared to the acquired land which has an area of 700 square metres. On that count, appropriate deduction can be made in the price of the sale deed plot since it is well known that smaller plots fetch higher price. It should also be kept in mind that the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L. A. Act is 7/1/91 whereas the date of the sale deed is 25/7/90. In my view, a deduction of 25% should serve the purpose to bring the price of the sale deed plot at par with that of the acquired land. That brings the price down to Rs. 60/-per square metre. In my considered opinion, Rs. 60/-per square metre should be just and reasonable compensation in respect of the acquired land. 19. In the result, (a) The appeal No. 113 of 2003 is dismissed. (b) The appeal no. 121 of 2003 is partly allowed. The Award of the Reference Court stands modified as far as the market value of the acquired land is concerned. The market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs. 60/-per square metre. The applicants shall be entitled to receive all the statutory benefits under the L. A. Act, in addition to the costs assessed at Rs.1000/-. The amount already paid to the applicants towards the land shall be adjusted.