Judgment This common judgment shall dispose all the above four appeals which arise out of the common judgment and award, dated 29/8/2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Cases No. 228/1993, 229/1993, 230/1993 and 231/1993. 2. The applicants as well as the respondents are the same in all the said four cases. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said land acquisition cases. 3. Vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short), in the Official Gazette dated 27/8/1987, land was acquired for improvement and black topping of Gorvotte road in V. P. Nuvem of Salcete Taluka. This included an area of 460 square metres of land from survey no. 66/1 of Nuvem village. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/-per square metre to the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicants filed application under section 18 of the L.A. Act before the L.A.O., which culminated into the four above referred Land Acquisition cases. 4. Since the acquired land concerned in all the four cases as also the parties were the same, by order dated 28/9/1998, the Reference Court clubbed all the four cases together. 5. The applicants claimed the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre as compensation for the acquired land. They further alleged that an area of 265 square metres having triangular shape was rendered useless on account of the acquisition and they claimed the same rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre as severance charges in respect of the said area. 6. The applicants examined the applicant no.1 namely, Shri Martinho P. Rodrigues as A.W.1 and his wife Mrs. Ida Rodrigues as A.W.2. The respondents examined Shri K. Rajan, the then Junior Civil Engineer, P.W.D, Division No. VI as R.W.1. 7. Upon analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court found that the sale deed dated 22/1/1992 (Exhibit A.W.2/A) produced by A.W.2 was relevant for determination of the market value of the acquired land and hence relying upon the same, fixed the market value at Rs. 58/-per square metre. However, since the applicants, in the reference application, had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 58/-per square metre. However, since the applicants, in the reference application, had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre, the market rate of the acquired land was fixed by the Reference Court at Rs. 50/-per square metre. Insofar as severed land admeasuring 265 square metres and having triangular shape is concerned, the Reference Court held that the same has been rendered useless. The reference Court awarded the same rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre towards severance charges in respect of the said land admeasuring 265 square metres. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court, the respondents have filed the present appeals. 9. Mr. Amey Kakdokar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, pointed out that the L.A.O. had offered only Rs. 5/-per square metre as compensation to the acquired land but the Reference Court has wrongly mentioned in the judgment that the L.A.O. had offered compensation of Rs. 25/-per square metre. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is nearly ten times the offer made by the L.A.O. and according to him, this is not sustainable. He further contended that A.W.1 had produced two sale deeds dated 16/9/1991 and 13/1/1994 respectively and the same have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court, they being post-notification transactions. He further contended that the sale deed dated 22/1/1982 produced by A.W.2 at Exhibit A.W.2/A pertains to the sale of land admeasuring 648 square metres made by the applicants to their mundkar. At the outset, he contended that this sale deed being five years prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, the same could not have been relied upon. Secondly, he contended that it is a sale made to a mundkar and does not appear to be restricted to the mundkarial area which ought to have been 300 square metres, but it pertains to a bigger area. He contended that a mundkar always has sentiments about the land which is near his house and, therefore, the landlord takes opportunity to claim a higher consideration than the actual market value of the said land. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon a sale made to a mundkar. He contended that a mundkar always has sentiments about the land which is near his house and, therefore, the landlord takes opportunity to claim a higher consideration than the actual market value of the said land. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon a sale made to a mundkar. He then pointed out that if the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982 is discarded, then there is absolutely no other material for determination of the market value of the acquired land. 10. Insofar as the land admeasuring 265 square metres, for which severance charges have been awarded, is concerned, the learned Government Advocate argued that the principles towards payment of compensation for severance are totally different, but the learned Reference Court, without any reason, has awarded the same rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre to this land also. The learned Additional Government Advocate argued that this severed portion can be used by the applicants for agricultural purpose and cannot be said to have been rendered totally useless. He, therefore, contended that the compensation of Rs. 50/-per square metre awarded for this land is quite on a higher side. 11. The learned Additional Government Advocate, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. Per contra, Ms. N. Pimenta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, with vehemence, argued that the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982 pertains to the same property from which land has been acquired and therefore the nature of the acquired land and the sale deed land is bound to be the same, due to which the said sale transaction is the best evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land. According to her, therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly placed reliance on the said sale deed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants invited my attention to the cross-examination of A.W.2 wherein the genuineness of the said sale deed has not at all been challenged or denied. She pointed out that the learned Reference Court has in fact held that the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 58/-per square metre, but only because the applicants had claimed Rs. 50/-per square metre, in their reference application, the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre. She pointed out that the learned Reference Court has in fact held that the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 58/-per square metre, but only because the applicants had claimed Rs. 50/-per square metre, in their reference application, the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre. The learned Counsel read out portions of the evidence of A.W.1, A.W.2 as well as of R.W.1 and argued that the acquired land is situated in urban area in close proximity of Margao city and there were a number of houses and even buildings of two floors very close to the acquired land at the relevant time and all the major amenities and facilities were available including access from the highway. She further argued that the evidence on record reveals that the acquired land was fit for construction and this fact has been stated even by R.W.1. According to Ms. Pimenta, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, therefore, the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted at all in awarding the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre to the acquired land. 13. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants further argued that the evidence on record reveals that the property of the applicants has been divided into two parts on account of the acquisition and that the land admeasuring 265 square metres, which is triangular in shape, is on the other side of the bypass road, and is totally useless for any purpose. She, therefore, contended that no fault can be attributed to the award of the Reference Court in respect of the said severed land. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the appeals are bound to be dismissed. 14. In Rejoinder, the learned Additional Government Advocate relied upon “P. Ram Reddy and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and Others”, (1995) 2 SCC 305 and argued that even if there is no cross-examination regarding the sale deed dated 22/1/1982, the reference court was not bound to accept the evidence of A.W.2. He further submitted that the said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “P. Ram Reddy and others” (supra), has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 135/2003. He further submitted that the said judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “P. Ram Reddy and others” (supra), has also been relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 135/2003. He, therefore, contended that merely because A.W.2 has not been cross-examined to suggest that the sale to the mundkar is not reliable for reasons pointed out by him earlier, it cannot be said that the Reference Court had to accept the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982. He re-iterated his contention that the severed land was not totally rendered useless. He relied upon the judgment dated 20/9/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 08/2004 and argued that the compensation in respect of the severed land should be reduced at 50% of the market value fixed for the acquired land since there is no evidence to disclose that the said piece of land was totally useless and cannot be used for any purpose at all. 15.I n reply, Ms. Pimenta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, relied upon “Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah”, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1117 and argued that for fixation of market value of the acquired land certified copy of the sale deed relating to similar lands situated in vicinity can be relied upon without examining vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. She argued that the price for which the land is sold vide the registered sale deed should be taken as the market value of the said land, unless proved otherwise. 16. I have carefully gone through the material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. The point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the acquired land and for severed land is just and reasonable. 18. Upon analysis of the evidence on record, following facts emerge as proved: (i) There was highway Margao-Cortalim at a distance of 200 metres from the acquired land. (ii) There was an access by way of kucha road from the said highway to the acquired land and four wheelers could pass through the said kucha road. (iii) The Nuvem market is about 200 metres from the acquired land. (ii) There was an access by way of kucha road from the said highway to the acquired land and four wheelers could pass through the said kucha road. (iii) The Nuvem market is about 200 metres from the acquired land. (iv) At a distance of about 12 metres from the acquired land, there were number of houses and even there were buildings of two floors. (v) There were telephone, water and electricity suply facilities in the property of the applicants from which the land was acquired, at the time of acquisition. (vi) The market, school, church, shops, college, banks, dispensaries of doctors etc. were available near by the acquired land. (vii) The distance from the acquired land to the K.T.C. Bus Stand at Margao is about 1 kilometre and the hospital facilities and other major facilities were available in Margao. (viii) There were mundkars residing in the property of the applicants. (ix) The acquired land was fit for construction. 19. Thus, the acquired land was a land having almost all the required amenities and facilities at the time of acquisition and was situated in urban area close to Margao city. Since the acquired land was also fit for construction, it can be certainly said that the rate of Rs. 5/-per square metre offered by the L.A.O. is too less. The acquired land was having good potential and value. 20. A.W.2 has produced the sale deed dated 22/1/1982 by which they had sold a portion of the same property from which land was acquired to one of their mundkars. It is seen that an area of 648 square metres was sold by the said sale deed which is at Exhibit A.W.2/A for the price of Rs. 38/-per square metre. Since the land sold by the said sale deed is from the same property, from which the land was acquired, it goes without saying that the nature of the acquired land and that of the land of the sale deed is the same. Therefore, this sale transaction can be easily said to be the best evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land. It is true that this sale transaction is dated 22/1/1982, whereas the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act is 27/8/1987, which means that there is a gap of about five and half years. It is true that this sale transaction is dated 22/1/1982, whereas the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act is 27/8/1987, which means that there is a gap of about five and half years. It is true that normally a sale transaction which has taken place about five or more than five years prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) of the L.A. Act should not be relied upon. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show that there was any sale transaction available in close proximity of time. R.W.1 who is the witness of the respondents has also not stated that there were any sale deeds in close proximity of time. In the case of 'General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation td. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr.”[ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ], there was no evidence of comparable sales. The land was acquired in 1994. The claimant had produced an award under which land was acquired on 6/1/1987, as Exhibit 15. The Hon'ble Supreme has held that in the absence of any evidence, relating to sale transaction or acquisitions relating to the village of Ijapura itself and having regard to the evidence relating to proximity of Santhal lands, Exhibit 15 offered a reasonable basis for determining the market value of the acquired land in Ijapura. There, there was a gap of about seven years. In the present case, the gap is of five and half years. In the case of “General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,”(supra), the Apex Court has observed that providing an escalation of 7.5% per annum over the 1987 price would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands in 1994. It is further observed that as per the trend in the nineties if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban area is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. 21. In the circumstances above, the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted in placing reliance upon the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982 merely because it is five and half years prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. 21. In the circumstances above, the learned Reference Court cannot be faulted in placing reliance upon the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982 merely because it is five and half years prior to the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. The learned reference court has added 10% of increase for every year to the said price of Rs. 38/-and thus has arrived at the market value of Rs. 58/-per square metre. Considering the fact that the acquired land is situated at Nuvem, which is very close of Margao city, annual increase of 10% is reasonable. 22. A perusal of the cross-examination of A.W.2 reveals that the genuineness of the sale deed dated 22/1/1982 produced as Exhibit A.W.2/A has not been challenged. No suggestion has been put to A.W.2 that the said sale deed does not reflect the correct market value of the acquired land. No suggestion has been put to A.W.2 that the sale transaction is influenced by sentiments of the mundkar and that taking advantage of such sentiments of the mundkar, the applicants have claimed a higher consideration for the said sale. In fact, it has been suggested to A.W.1 himself by the learned advocate for the respondents that in his application for enhancement, he referred to an area of 648 square metres of land sold to a mundkar at the rate of Rs. 38/-per square metre in the year 1982. No suggestion has been put to A.W1 that the said rate of Rs. 38/-per square metre does not reflect the correct market value of the land sold to the said mundkar. 23. 38/-per square metre in the year 1982. No suggestion has been put to A.W1 that the said rate of Rs. 38/-per square metre does not reflect the correct market value of the land sold to the said mundkar. 23. In the case of “P. Ram Reddy and Others” (supra), one of the questions that was formulated was as follows: “Whether the value of the land mentioned in an instance of sale or an instance of gift claimed to compare with the acquired land warrants acceptance as the correct value of such land merely because the witnesses who would have given evidence as regards them, on behalf of the claimants, had not been cross-examined or effectively cross-examined on behalf of the LAO?” The Apex Court has observed that in Land Acquisition References before Civil Courts, when witnesses give oral evidence in support of the claims of claimants for higher compensation, the ineffective cross-examination of such witnesses, is not an uncommon feature if regard is had to the manner in which claims for enhanced compensation in land acquisition cases are defended in courts on behalf of the State. The Apex Court has made a reference to its own observation in the case of “ChaturbhujPande V. Collector” [ AIR 1969 SC 255 ], wherein it has been held thus: “It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants have not been effectively cross-examined. It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence. The Judges are not computers...... they are bound to call into aid their experience of life and test the evidence on the basis of probabilities.” The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when Court tests the oral evidence of the claimants on the touch stone of probabilities calling into aid, its experience of life, men and matters and finds such evidence to be untrustworthy, the same cannot be found fault with. 24. Therefore, it is evident that even if there is no proper cross-examination, the reference court is not bound to accept the evidence of the claimant or his witnesses. 24. Therefore, it is evident that even if there is no proper cross-examination, the reference court is not bound to accept the evidence of the claimant or his witnesses. That does not mean that the evidence of a witness who relies upon and produces a sale deed in support of his claim for determination of the market value and the said sale deed is simply to be discarded or that such a witness is bound to state specifically in his testimony that the said sale deed reflects the correct market value of the land which is subject matter of the said sale deed. If there is no cross-examination to show that the sale deed should not be relied upon as it does not reflect the correct market value and if there is no other material on record to doubt the genuineness of the said sale deed, the Court, on the touchstone of probabilities, and by calling into aid the experience of life, can certainly rely upon the evidence of the witness in his examination-in-chief and the sale transaction produced by him. It is not necessary that a party relying upon a registered sale deed should examine witnesses to prove the execution or genuineness of the said sale deed. 25. In the case of “Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer” (supra), the Apex Court has held that a certified copy of the sale deed relating to similar lands situated in the vicinity can be relied upon for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land without examining the vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. Therefore, the Court can consider the transaction mentioned in the sale deed itself as evidence in the case. It was another thing if the respondents had brought in the cross-examination of A.W.2 or in the evidence of R.W.1 something which could have rendered the said transaction unreliable. Merely on conjectures, it cannot be held that the mundkar had sentiments about the land which is the subject matter of the sale deed at Exhibit A.W.2/A and, therefore, the applicants had charged a higher price for the land. In my considered opinion, the learned reference court has not committed any error in relying upon the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982. It is to be kept in mind that by giving 10% increase for every year, the price of Rs. In my considered opinion, the learned reference court has not committed any error in relying upon the said sale deed dated 22/1/1982. It is to be kept in mind that by giving 10% increase for every year, the price of Rs. 38/-of the said sale deed becomes Rs. 58/-per square metre. However, the Reference Court has not awarded the said rate of Rs. 58/-per square metre to the applicants. The rate that is awarded by the Reference Court is Rs. 50/-per square metre. In my considered opinion, the said rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre is just and reasonable and reflects the true market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. 26. The evidence on record duly establishes that an area of 265 square metres of the land from the property of the applicants has been sliced away from the remaining bigger part of their property on account of the present acquisition. The property has been divided into two parts and a small portion admeasuring 265 square metres, which is triangular in shape, lies on the other side of the bypass road. A.W.1 has deposed that in this triangular portion no construction is possible. A.W.2 has deposed that due to this acquisition their property is divided into two parts and one part has become a triangle where nothing can be done and that the area of the said triangular land is about 265 square metres. R.W.1 has deposed that construction is not possible in the triangular shaped land which has remained unacquried. However, I agree with the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the said land has not been totally rendered useless. Admittedly, the property of the applicants is agricultural property consisting of coconut trees etc. Though, no construction is possible in the said triangular portion admeasuring 265 square metres, however, fruit bearing trees can be planted in the said land, which continues to belong to the applicants and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said land has been rendered useless. Admittedly, the property of the applicants is agricultural property consisting of coconut trees etc. Though, no construction is possible in the said triangular portion admeasuring 265 square metres, however, fruit bearing trees can be planted in the said land, which continues to belong to the applicants and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said land has been rendered useless. In First Appeal No. 08/2004, by judgment dated 20/9/2011, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the title of the portion of severed land continues with the respondent and the respondent is free to enjoy the said portion of land, though considering the smallness of the said area, the respondent would suffer some prejudice on such enjoyment. The learned Single Judge has observed that the reference court was not therefore justified in fixing the same amount of compensation for the land which has been severed. It is observed that taking note of the fact that there is no dispute that there is no evidence on record to establish that the said piece of land has become totally useless for the respondent, the amount of compensation on account of such severance is to be reduced by 50% of the rate fixed for the acquired land. 27. I have no reason to defer from the above finding of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 08/2004. The facts are similar to the present case. The learned Reference Court has not considered this aspect of the matter. I am, therefore, of the view that the Reference Court erred in awarding Rs. 50/-per square metre as severance charges to the said severed land admeasuring 265 square metres. In my considered view, the applicants are entitled to Rs. 25/-per square metre, i.e. 50% of the amount of the market value fixed for the acquired land, in respect of the said severed land and as severance charges. The impugned judgment and award requires to be modified only to that extent. 28.I n the result, the appeals are partly allowed. (a) The impugned judgment and award in so far as fixing of the rate of the acquired land at Rs. 50/-per square metre, is concerned, is maintained. (b) However, the impugned judgment and award holding that the applicants are entitled for severance charges at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre is quashed and set aside. (a) The impugned judgment and award in so far as fixing of the rate of the acquired land at Rs. 50/-per square metre, is concerned, is maintained. (b) However, the impugned judgment and award holding that the applicants are entitled for severance charges at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square metre is quashed and set aside. The applicants are held to be entitled for severance charges in respect of the area of 265 square metres at the rate of Rs. 25/-per square metre. (c) The applicants shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the L.A. Act. (d) The amount already paid to the applicants shall be adjusted. (e) The applicants shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 1000/-.