Judgment U.V. Bakre, J. The above two appeals are taken up together for final disposal since both of them arise from the judgment and award dated 30/1/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 71/2000. 2. The appellant in First Appeal No. 145/2006 was the applicant; the Dy. Collector and S.D.O., Quepem was respondent no. 1 and the Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Goa Industrial Development Corporation was respondent no. 2, in the said L.A.C. No. 71/2000. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Award. 3. Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Narvenkar, learned Additional Government for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 4. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and published in the Official Gazette dated 5/10/1987, land was acquired for setting up an Industrial Estate at Verna Plateau. This included an area of 38,200 square metres of land from survey no. 98(part) of village Quelossim belonging to the applicant. By Award dated 29/11/1994, the Land Acquisition officer (L.A.O, for short) awarded compensation by adopting belting method, indicated as under: 5. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the applicant filed application under section 18 of the Act before the L.A.O. which gave rise to the said L.A.C. No. 71/2000. The applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/-per square metre for the entire acquired land. The applicant also claimed compensation towards rubble wall; a structure; cost of construction of rubble wall; and towards severance for an area of 3025 square metres. 6. The applicant examined four witnesses, out of which three were its employees and the fourth was an Engineering Consultant and registered valuer whereas, the respondent no. 2 examined one witness, who was working as its Area Manager (Engineering). 7. 6. The applicant examined four witnesses, out of which three were its employees and the fourth was an Engineering Consultant and registered valuer whereas, the respondent no. 2 examined one witness, who was working as its Area Manager (Engineering). 7. The Reference Court, after assessing the entire evidence on record, held that there was no justification for adopting belting method for determining the market value of the BELT AREA MARKET VALUE PER M2 (1) BELT 1 (Bharad land) 20375 m2 Rs.8/- (2) BELT II (Bharad land) 5100 m2 Rs.7/- (3) Un-tenanted paddy field 8375 m2 Rs.5/- (4) Quarry 4200 m2 Rs.2/- Total Area 38050 m2 acquired land, as the entire land was one compact holding under survey no. 98. The Reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 31/-per square metre. The claim of compensation under other heads was rejected. 8. Aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court, the applicant has filed the appeal for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land, whereas, the respondent no. 2 has filed the appeal praying therein to quash and set aside the judgment and award of the Reference Court. 9. Mr. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, at the outset, made it clear that the applicant, in the appeal, is not interested in challenge to the award whereby the compensation claimed under other heads has been rejected. He submitted that subsequent to the acquisition involved in the present appeals, there was further acquisition of the land for expansion of the Verna Industrial Estate (Verna Plateau), Phase-II. He submitted that by notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act, and published in the official gazette dated 22/3/1990, additional land was acquired for the said purpose of expansion of the Industrial Estate at Verna and that this included the balance portion of the land of the applicant from the same survey no. 98 of Quelossim village. He submitted that the said balance land admeasuring 3047 square metres of survey no. 98 was subject matter of First Appeal No. 303/2003 decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 16/12/2010. Learned counsel contended that the area of 2723 square metres of the said balance land under survey no. 98 of Quelossim village. He submitted that the said balance land admeasuring 3047 square metres of survey no. 98 was subject matter of First Appeal No. 303/2003 decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 16/12/2010. Learned counsel contended that the area of 2723 square metres of the said balance land under survey no. 98 which was subject matter of the said First Appeal No. 303/2003 and the area of 38,200 square metres which is subject matter of the present appeals is similar land. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said First Appeal No. 303/2003, which in turn was covered by the Division bench judgment of this Court in First Appeals No. 300/2003 and 317/2003. In the said First Appeal No. 303/2003, compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/-per square metre has been granted for the said land admeasuring 2723 square metres from survey no. 98 of village Quellosim. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the Special Leave Petition filed against the above award has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thereby upholding the rate so fixed. 10. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act, insofar as the acquired land which was subject matter of First Appeal No. 303/2003, is concerned, was published on 22/3/1990 whereas that in the present appeals, was published on 5/10/1987. In other words, there is a gap of about 2 years and 5 months between the two notifications. Mr. Diniz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 2937 and submitted that a deduction of 15% be made from the base rate of Rs. 48/-by doing which, the compensation for the acquired land works out to Rs. 40.80 per square metre. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal of the applicant be accordingly partly allowed by granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 40.80 per square metre and the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 be dismissed. 11. Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, contended that there was no material before the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation. 40.80 per square metre and the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 be dismissed. 11. Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, contended that there was no material before the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation. However, he conceded that the judgments of this Court in First Appeals No. 300/2003, 317/2003 and 303/2003, have become final. Learned Counsel could not point out as to how the land admeasuring 2723 square metres which was subject matter of First Appeal No. 303/2003 is not comparable with the land admeasuring 38,200 square metres which is subject matter of the present appeals, with regard to the nature. Admittedly, they are parts of one compact survey holding no. 98 of Village Quellosim. 12. We have perused the material on record, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. What should be the true market value of the acquired land, as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, is the question which arises for determination. 14. In the First Appeals No. 300/2003 and 317/2003, inter alia, an area of 30,650 square metres of land from survey no. 40/part situated at Nagoa village was involved. Land was acquired for expansion of the Verna Industrial Estate (Verna Plateau), Phase-II. The notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 22/3/1990. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 22/7/2010 fixed the market rate of the acquired land admeasuring 29,600 square metres, from said survey no. 40/part, which was found to be flat and rocky, at Rs. 48/-per square metre. 15. In the First Appeal No. 303/2003, the balance land of the applicant from same survey no. 98 of village Quelossim, admeasuring 3047 square metres, was involved. Here also land was acquired for the expansion of Verna Industrial Estate (Phase-II), under the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act and published in the official gazette dated 22/3/1990. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the said First Appeal had fairly conceded that the applicant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/-per square metre in respect of 2723 square metres of land from said survey no. 98, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeals No. 300/2003 and 317/2003. 48/-per square metre in respect of 2723 square metres of land from said survey no. 98, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeals No. 300/2003 and 317/2003. Since the land admeasuring 2723 square metres concerned in First Appeal No. 303/2003 and the land of 38,200 square metres concerned in the present appeals, is from the same survey no. 98 of Village Quellosim, there cannot be any dispute that the nature of both lands, is similar. 16. It is further seen that the issue involved in the said First Appeal No. 303/2003 was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 22/7/2010, passed in First Appeals No. 300/2003 and 317/2003 in which the Division Bench, after assessing the evidence, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/-Rs. 24/-, Rs. 20/-and Rs.15/-per square metre in respect of different portions of lands by following the belting system. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the same applicant in the First Appeal No. 303/2003 that the land bearing survey no. 40/part which was subject matter of the said First Appeals No. 300/2003 and 317/2003, and for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/-per square metre was awarded, was similar in nature to the plot admeasuring 3047 square metres, belonging to the applicant. The learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 303/2003 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 48/-per square metre, in respect of an area of 2723 square metres of land from survey no. 98 of Village Quellosim. 17. In the case of “Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel” [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ], it has been held that if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas 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. It has been further held that this rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. It has been further held that this rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. The Apex Court has further held that where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. The same principle has been re-iterated in the case of “Valliyammaland Anr. etc. V. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and another etc” [ AIR 2011 SC 2937 ]. 18. In respect of the land which was subject matter of First Appeal No. 303/2003, the relevant date for determination of the market value of the acquired land was 22/3/1990, whereas in respect of the acquired land involved in the present appeals the relevant date is 5/10/1987, which means that there is a gap of about 2 years and 5 months. Taking into account the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of “O.N.G.C. Ltd.” and “Valliyammal” (supra), even if the appreciation for the said period of about 2 years and five months is deducted by higher percentage of 7.5% per year, then the compensation for the acquired land concerned in the present appeals works out to be Rs. 39.50 (rounded up to Rs. 40/-) per square metre. 19 .In view of the above, First Appeal No. 145/2006 filed by the applicant is partly allowed, whereas, First Appeal No. 256/2007 filed by the Respondent no. 2 is rejected. The applicant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/-per square metre in respect of the said area of 38,200 square metres from survey no. 98 of Village Quellosim. The applicants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act. 20. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.