U. V. BAKRE, J. :- Both the above appeals, which are directed against the judgment and award dated 17/4/2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji, (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 1987, shall be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the impugned award. Since the applicant Shri Gustav Renato de Cruz Pinto has expired, he shall be referred to as the original applicant and his legal representatives shall be referred to as the LRs of the original applicant. The Deputy Collector, Goa North Division shall be referred as the L.A.O. and Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd. shall be referred to as Respondent no.2. 3. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("The Act", for short), which was published in the Official Gazette dated 30/10/1980, the Government of Goa acquired land measuring 2609 square metres and 16505 square metres (total area: 19114 square metres) from the property respectively surveyed under Nos. 245/2 and 246/2 of Taleigao village, belonging to the original applicant, for the purpose of construction of a luxury hotel, at Curla, Vaiguinim, Taleigao for the respondent no.2, which is a company. By award dated 22/9/1986, the L.A.O. fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square metre and also awarded further compensation for the building, compound wall and trees existing in the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the original applicant sought reference under Section 18 of The Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed that the market value of the acquired land, as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of The Act, was Rs.500/- per square metre. Land Acquisition Case No. 5/1987 arose out of the said reference made by the LAO. 4. The original applicant examined himself as AW.1 and produced various documents before the reference court. He also examined witnesses namely Shri Prakash Arlekar as A W2, who produced the files pertaining to land acquisition proceedings bearing no. LQN/ 176/80; Shri Xavier Gracias as Aw.3; Valuer namely Shri Rajanikant P. Sardessai as AW.4 who produced the valuation report dated 25/4/1985, an addendum to the valuation report, several sale deeds and award, etc., and Shri Olivio Agnel da Cruz Pinto as AW.5. LQN/ 176/80; Shri Xavier Gracias as Aw.3; Valuer namely Shri Rajanikant P. Sardessai as AW.4 who produced the valuation report dated 25/4/1985, an addendum to the valuation report, several sale deeds and award, etc., and Shri Olivio Agnel da Cruz Pinto as AW.5. The respondent no. 2 examined its Managing Director namely Mrs. Anju Timblo as R.1 and she produced various documents. The respondent no.2 also examined one Shri Ivo Cardozo as RW.2 and Shri Ramesh Kumar Phadtare as RW.3. 5. The Reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, enhanced the market value of the acquired land and fixed the same at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square metre and also allowed other statutory benefits. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Reference Court, the original applicant has filed the appeal for further enhancement of the market value, as per the claim made in the reference application whereas, the respondent no.2 has filed the appeal for setting aside enhancement granted by the Reference Court. The original applicant died during the pendency of the appeals and hence his LRs have been brought on record. 7. Learned Advocate Shri S.G Bhobe argued on behalf of the LRs of the original applicants. Learned Advocate Ms. Susan Linhares argued on behalf of the L.A.O. and learned Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar argued on behalf of the respondent no.2. 8. Learned Advocate Shri S. G Bhobe, on behalf of the LRs of the original applicant, submitted that the matter was hotly contested by the parties and lot of evidence, oral as well as documentary, was produced on record but the Reference Court has not considered all the said material produced and has passed a short judgment, which has caused miscarriage of justice. On this ground, he suggested that the matter could be remanded to the Reference Court, for re-consideration. 9. Shri Bhobe, further argued that in the present case, the method of calculation of the market value of the acquired land ought to have been by consideration of the profits that would be made by the respondent no. 2 from the luxury hotel project. He argued that the respondent no. 2 had two pockets of land on either side of the acquired land of the original applicant and they needed the acquired land for continuity and extension of the project of hotel which was already built. 2 from the luxury hotel project. He argued that the respondent no. 2 had two pockets of land on either side of the acquired land of the original applicant and they needed the acquired land for continuity and extension of the project of hotel which was already built. He pointed out that the original applicant had also applied for hotel project in his land and his negotiations, with the adjoining land owners for purchase of their land, were going on. He, thus, argued that two parties were competing for the same project of hotel and this aspect had to be considered, but not considered by the reference Court. According to Shri Bhobe, when the disputes of the original applicant with the adjoining land owners were going on, behind his back, the respondent no. 2 moved the Government for acquisition. He pointed out that, when the notification under Section 6 of The Act was published, the original applicant had challenged the acquisition before the High Court by means of Writ Petition No. 8/1984 and the matter had gone up to the Apex Court. He pointed out that in the High Court, after the matter was remanded back, the original applicant gave up the claim and withdrew his challenge to the notifications and vide the consent terms executed before the High Court, in the said Writ Petition No. 8/84, the possession of the acquired land was given by the original applicant to the respondent no. 2. The acquired land, according to Shri Bhobe, had therefore special value for the respondent no. 2. He, argued that the market value of the acquired land has to be seen from the aspect of the intrinsic value, which it had, to the person to whom it was given i. e. to the respondent no. 2. He pointed out that the respondent no. I did not lead any evidence before the Reference Court. 10. Shri S. G. Bhobe, the learned counsel for the LRs of the original applicant, in support of his above contentions, has relied upon various citations and the propositions laid down therein, as follows:- (a) "Chimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and others" (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1652), wherein the methodology of determination of the market value of the land has been indicated. Inter alia, it has been held that the special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom the acquired land may have some very special advantage, is one of the factors to be borne in mind while determining the market value of the land. (b) "Atma Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. And Others Vs. State of Haryana and another" [ (2008) 2 SCC 568 ] : [2008 ALL SCR 247]. In the case supra, the acquisition was for setting up of a sugar factory which would produce goods worth many crores in a year and the profit would be substantial. The Ron 'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- "The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. " (c) "Sangunthala (dead) Through Lrs Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and others"[ (2010) 3 SCC 661 ]: [2010(2) ALL MR 933 (S.C.)], wherein, the Apex Court inter alia has held that while determining value of he property acquired, the fact whether the land has got building potentiality to be used for building purposes in the immediate or in near future needs to be considered. In the case supra, reference has been made to "P. Ram Reddy v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority", [ (1995) 2 SCC 305 ], wherein, potentiality is explained to be a possibility of the acquired land put to certain use on the date envisaged under Section 4(1) of The Act, of becoming available for better use in the immediate or near future. (d) "Western Coalfields Ltd., Distt. Chandrapur Vs. (d) "Western Coalfields Ltd., Distt. Chandrapur Vs. Subhash Dhondopant Deshmukh & Ors." (2010(2) ALL MR 74) wherein, the appellant W.C.L. had many coal mines from which black gold was extracted and the appellant was earning huge profits there from. The land in question was acquired for railway siding for carrying coal which was integral part of the business of the appellant, , due to which the appellant was bound to be hugely enriched with the acquisition of the suit lands. The learned Single Judge of Nagpur Bench of this High Court, in the case supra, has held that the potentiality of the suit lands having black coal within it and the object for which the same was acquired i.e. for commerce and due to which acquiring party would be hugely benefited is a relevant factor for determining the just compensation. (e) "Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs. State of Maharashtra" [ (2009) 11 SCC 141 ] : [2009 ALL SCR 1335], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to its earlier judgment in 'Land Acquisition Officer & Mandai Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah", [ (2001) 3 SCC 530 ] : [2001 (3) ALL MR 517 (S.C.)] and has held that it is well established proposition of law that the burden of proving the true market value of the acquired property is on the State that has acquired it for a particular purpose. (f) "Deputy Collector (L.A) & L.A.O., Panaji & Anr. Vs. Shri Joaquim Francis Fernandes & Ors", [2010(5) ALL MR 329], wherein a Division Bench of this High Court has held that when the land owner has been able to show by testimony and valuation report of expert valuer that amount of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the onus shifts on the State to adduce additional evidence to sustain the award. 11. Learned Advocate Shri Bhobe invited our attention to the Deed of Exchange (Exhibit AW.1/P), dated 20/12/1978; between the original applicant and the respondent no. 2, by virtue of which 7500 square metres of land valued at Rs. 3/- per square metre, belonging to the respondent no. 2 came to the ownership of the original applicant, whereas, a smaller plot measuring 475 square metres valued at about Rs.15.78/- per square metre went to the ownership of the respondent no. 2. He pointed out that in this Exchange Deed, the transaction was valued at Rs. 3/- per square metre, belonging to the respondent no. 2 came to the ownership of the original applicant, whereas, a smaller plot measuring 475 square metres valued at about Rs.15.78/- per square metre went to the ownership of the respondent no. 2. He pointed out that in this Exchange Deed, the transaction was valued at Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of stamp duty. This value of Rs. 25,000/-, according to Shri Bhobe, is to be taken as the value of the land measuring 7500 square metres, which belonged to the original applicant, in the year 1978, which makes the value as Rs. 52.63/- per square metre. The date of publication of notification under Section 4 of The Act is 30/10/1980. Therefore, according to Shri Bhobe, even if annual increase of 10% is given, the market value of the acquired land would be around Rs. 63/- per square metre. Learned Advocate Shri Bhobe further contended that looking at the already existing Five Star hotel in the land adjoining the acquired land and the special value of the acquired land to the respondent no. 2, the annual increase should be at least 20%, which would make the market value of the acquired land at around Rs. 74/per square metre. 12. Learned Advocate Shri Bhobe pointed out from the impugned judgment that the evidence of the expert valuer, AW. 4, Shri Rajanikant P. Sardessai and his valuation report AW. 4/A has been totally brushed aside, though he was effectively cross-examined b) a Senior Advocate and had firmly stood to the test of cross examination. He also argued that the evidence of AW.5 who is the son of the original applicant has also not been considered. According to Shri Bhobe, the evidence of the Valuer read with the documents relied upon by him and produced along with the valuation report are sufficient to prove the claim of the original applicant. 13. As far as the award pertaining to Palm Groves Hotel, at Gaspar Dias, Panaji, which is at Exhibit AW.1/T, is concerned, learned Advocate Shri Bhobe argued that the land therein was acquired for construction of luxury hotel just like the acquisition in the present case. 13. As far as the award pertaining to Palm Groves Hotel, at Gaspar Dias, Panaji, which is at Exhibit AW.1/T, is concerned, learned Advocate Shri Bhobe argued that the land therein was acquired for construction of luxury hotel just like the acquisition in the present case. He contended that the notification under section 4(1) of The Act, in respect of the land acquired for M/s Palm Hotels, was published on 27/11/1980 and the land was near to and similar in nature to the acquired land of the present case and the compensation was fixed at Rs. 189/- per square metre. The said land is bounded on one side by Mandovi river. The grievance of Shri Bhobe is that this award at Exhibit AW.1/T has not at all been considered by the Reference Court. He argued that the notification under section 4(1) of The Act, in respect of the acquired land of the original applicant is 30/10/1980 and since the acquired land is also meant for hotel project, there is no question of any deduction to be made in the rate of Rs. 189/- per square metre. He then pointed out that the land acquired for Palm Groves Hotel was valued at Rs.189/- per square metre in November 1980 whereas, the land acquired for Food Craft Institute, adjacent to river beach, at Miramar-Panaji, vide the award (Exhibit AW.4/D) of the L.A.O., was valued at Rs. 60/-, in November 1978. He, therefore, argued that when the land is commercial, and more particularly meant for luxury Hotel, the appreciation in price is almost triple, in just about two years. 14. Learned Advocate Shri Bhobe, therefore, concluded by contending that compensation of Rs. 36/- per square metre granted by the Reference Court is quite unjust and inadequate compensation which requires to be substantially enhanced. 15. On the contrary, learned Advocate Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, on behalf of the respondent no. 2, argued that the antecedents of the acquisition are irrelevant. He pointed out that clause 5 of Section 24 of The Act provides that the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use of which it will be put when acquired. 2, argued that the antecedents of the acquisition are irrelevant. He pointed out that clause 5 of Section 24 of The Act provides that the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use of which it will be put when acquired. He further argued that in terms of the first clause of Section 23 of The Act, the market value of the land is to be determined on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of The Act. Learned Advocate Shri Usgaonkar argued that the claimant had only a dream regarding the project of hotel and there is no evidence on record about possibility of fulfillment of the said dream as the property of the applicants was not sufficient for such project. Shri Usgaonkar pointed out that in so far as Machado's property, which the original applicant was intending to purchase, is concerned, in the suit for specific performance, the applicant was required to deposit the money, which he did not do, due to which the suit was dismissed. Therefore, according to learned Shri Usgaonkar, the applicant remained with his small plot which was not at all sufficient for fulfilling his dream of hotel project. Shri Usgaonkar further pointed out that by letter dated January 1978, permission was rejected to the applicant and therefore, the dream of the claimant had come to an end in January 1978 itself. Shri Usgaonkar submitted that if the property of Fomento was valued at Rs.3/- per square metre in the exchange deed, which was executed after construction of the hotel, the claimant could not claim increase in price, due to hotel project. He pointed out that as per Section 18 of the Transfer of Property Act, exchange is a mutual transfer. He, therefore, argued that in an exchange, there is no true market value mentioned and thus, the transaction is at the convenience of two parties and depends upon the personal importance for each one of them or one of them. According to Shri Usgaonkar, the exchange deed has, therefore, been rightly rejected by the Reference Court. 16. He, therefore, argued that in an exchange, there is no true market value mentioned and thus, the transaction is at the convenience of two parties and depends upon the personal importance for each one of them or one of them. According to Shri Usgaonkar, the exchange deed has, therefore, been rightly rejected by the Reference Court. 16. Assailing the valuation report, learned Advocate Shri Usgaonkar pointed out that when the expert valuer had visited the acquired land, the possession was already with Fomento company and the site inspection which was done after five years and the report which was prepared on the basis of said site inspection has no value. He also pointed out from the valuation report that the same lacks professional skill. 17. Learned Advocate Shri Usgaonkar further submitted that the applicant had exchanged his property for about Rs. 15/per square metre in 1978 and as such its market rate could not have been Rs.189/- per square metre, which was awarded for the land acquired for Palm Groves Hotel. 18. Shri Usgaonkar, further argued that though the acquired land bearing old cadastral survey nos. 803 and 804 (new survey nos. 245/2 and 246/2), which are adjoining each other, had direct access to the sea, however, there was no access to approach the said acquired lands. He took us to the letter dated 14/12/1977 (ExhibitAW.1/C), signed by the original applicant and Machado, which shows that the alleged development as tourist cottage industry was to be done jointly in the properties of the two persons. He therefore contended that independently, the acquired land had no value. He further pointed out that the original applicant, by agreement dated 12/5/1979 (ExhibitAW.1/D4), had agreed to pay different prices of Rs. 20/-, Rs.15/- and Rs. 10/- per square metre, to Machado for areas indicated in the plan annexed to that agreement, in red, green and yellow colour, from old cadastral survey no. 790. He further pointed out that by letter dated 30/1/1978 (Exhibit AW1/D8), the applicant had offered to pay price of Rs. 10/per square metre to, the properties of Mr. Remigio Pinto situated at Corleavanguenim, Taleigao. Thus, according to learned counsel, the above were the market rates of the said lands close to the acquired land, in 1978 and 1979, as understood by the original applicant himself. 19. 10/per square metre to, the properties of Mr. Remigio Pinto situated at Corleavanguenim, Taleigao. Thus, according to learned counsel, the above were the market rates of the said lands close to the acquired land, in 1978 and 1979, as understood by the original applicant himself. 19. Shri Usgaonkar, then pointed out that by sale deed dated 10/3/1978 (Exhibit RW.1/A), the respondent no. 2 had purchased the properties bearing old cadastral survey nos. 787, 790, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, and 805, totally measuring 1,12,631 square metres belonging to Shri Remegio Pinto and situated at Taleigao, for Rs.4,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of around Rs. 3.55/- per square metre. He pointed out that in the Special Civil Suit no. 313/1978/ A, filed by the original applicant against the respondent no. 2, for pre-emption in respect of the properties under old cadastral survey no. 787 and 805, the original applicant did not dispute the price of Rs. 3.55 paise per square metre, regarding the said properties. Shri Usgaonkar then took us through the sale transactions, produced by the respondent no. 2 through RW2, which are at Exhibits RW2/A, RW.2/B, and RW.2/C which pertain to developed plots. By sale deed at Exhibit RW2/A, dated 24/8/1979, two developed plots together admeasuring 1008 square metres, situated in the Taleigao La Citadel Colony, on the left side of Dona Paula-Bambolim road, at a distance of about 400 to 600 metres from the acquired land, were sold for Rs. 20/- per square metre. Vide sale deeds, Exhibit RW.2/B and Exhibit RW.2/C, both dated 27/2/1980, developed plots respectively measuring 645 and 583 square metres, situated in Taleigao, Bella Vesta Colony, on the left side of the Dona Paula-Bambolim road, at a distance of about 750 metres from the acquired land, were each sold for Rs. 12/- per square metre. By sale deed, Exhibit RW.2/D, dated 30/4/1980, land measuring 39,300 square metres, consisting of plateau, sloping, hilly and plain land, situated on the right side of said Dona Paula-Bambolim road, in the Taleigao Sagar Cooperative Society, at a distance of about 250 metres from the acquired land, was sold for Rs. 15/- per square metre. 20. Shri Usgaonkar, argued that the above material, produced by the respondent no. 15/- per square metre. 20. Shri Usgaonkar, argued that the above material, produced by the respondent no. 2 and which sufficiently proved that the market value of the acquired land cannot be more than that offered by the L.A.O., was ignored by the Reference Court and under a wrong presumption that the acquired land is situated at Dona Paula, the Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 2/4/1979 (Exhibit AW1/C) pertaining to a developed plot situated at Dona Paula and by making deduction of only 30% in the price of the sale deed plot, and then making addition of 10% to the remainder, due to the gap of more than one year between the date of notification under section 4(1) of The Act and the date of the sale deed, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 36/per square metre. Learned Advocate Shri Usgaonkar contended that in fact the value of the acquired land was less than that offered by the L.A.O., but since the respondent no.2, Company, steps in the shoes of the Government, it cannot ask for reduction of the rate below Rs. 25/- per square metres, as fixed by the L.A.O. He therefore argued that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 21. Shri Usgaonkar, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance in the following authorities: (a) "Printers House Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cold Storage And Food Porducts & Ors." (1994 (2) SCC 134], wherein it has been held that the market value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller for a property, having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out ofthe scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. (b) "State of Haryana V s. Ram Singh" [(2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254] : [2001(4) ALL MR 544 (S.C.)], wherein the Apex Court has held that the potential value of the land forms the market value of that land and therefore, payment of any amount over and above the market value, on account of potential value is not permitted. (b) "State of Haryana V s. Ram Singh" [(2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 254] : [2001(4) ALL MR 544 (S.C.)], wherein the Apex Court has held that the potential value of the land forms the market value of that land and therefore, payment of any amount over and above the market value, on account of potential value is not permitted. It has been held that potential value of the acquired land may be taken account when determining its market value, but once market value has been determined no further amount may be added to it. (c) "Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. Government of U.P. ( AIR 1967 SC 465 ), wherein, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has held that market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under section 23 of the Act means the price a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. (d) "Samar Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. Jit Lal and another" (AIR 1924 Allahabad 390), wherein it has been held as follows: "The value of the property and the convenience which one person secures is the price that he receives for the property exchanged. Intrinsic value of the property as distinguished from the market value varies according to the purpose or the necessity which induces the exchange. An exchange implies an interchange of property with another except in so far as the price is not payable in money and the rights and obligations attaching to an exchange are analogous to a sale. But those rights and obligations are enforceable between the parties inter se. Thus, third party cannot be substituted in place of either" (e) "Special Land Acquisition Officer and others Vs. Kotraiah and others" (AIR 1977 Karnataka 33), wherein it has been held as under; "The process of valuation is said to be the prediction of an economic event the price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of all probabilities. It is thus a fact finding exercise as to a logical desideratum and it is essential to explain its logical derivations. It is thus a fact finding exercise as to a logical desideratum and it is essential to explain its logical derivations. The value of expert evidence is directly proportional to the accuracy of facts which it is supported by and is dependent upon the cogency of its reasons. The criteria adopted by the expert must be susceptible to and admit of objective verification. A mere ipse dixit of the expert will not suffice." 22. We have gone through the entire material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and the citations relied upon by them. 23. The LRs of the original Applicant have no grievance about the compensation awarded by the L.A.O. for structures, etc., which were situated in the acquired land. Their main grievance is about the market value of the acquired land. The only point for determination is, therefore, as to what is the proper market value of the acquired land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4( I) of The Act. 24. It has been held in the case of "Sangunthala", [2010(2) ALL MR 933 (S.C.)] (supra), that the burden of proving the market value always lies on the claimant and he is in the position of plaintiff. From the ratio of the case of "Mahesh Thirthkar", [2009 ALL SCR 1335] and "Shri Joaquim Francis Fernandes"(supra), also, it can be understood that the initial burden of proving the market value is on the claimant and once the claimant shows the inadequacy of the amount of compensation, the onus shifts on the respondent to adduce additional evidence to sustain the award. In the present case, it may be that the Government did not lead any evidence, however, the company for whose benefit, the land was acquired, i.e. the respondent No.2, has led ample evidence. 25. The first clause of Section 23 (1) of The Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1). Clause 5 of Section 24 of The Act provides that the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the other land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. Clause 5 of Section 24 of The Act provides that the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the other land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. In the case of "Atma Singh", [2008 ALLSCR 247] supra, as pointed out by learned Shri Usgaonkar, the factors namely possibility of increase in the market value of the acquired land, and the purpose for which it was acquired were taken into consideration to decide whether it would be proper to make deduction in the price of the land shown by the exemplars of small plots. In so far as the observations in paragraph 15 of "Atma Singh", (2008 ALL SCR 247] supra, to the effect that no deduction need be made having regard to the purpose for which land was acquired, are concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the subsequent case of "Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and anr."[(2010) 1 SCC 444], has explained the same in paragraph 32 thereof, as follows:- "32. The above observations in "Atma singh" no doubt seem to suggest that where the acquisition is for a residential layout, deduction towards development cost is a must, but if the acquisition is for an industry which does not require forming a layout of sites, the market value of small residential plots may be adopted without any cuts towards development cost. The said observations are made with reference to the special facts of that case. If they are read out of context to support a contention that the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor to avoid the deduction of development cost in valuation, it may then be necessary to consider the said observation as having been made per incuriam, as they overlook a mandatory statutory provision-Section 24 (clause fifthly) of the Act and the series of decisions of larger Benches of this Court which hold that when value of large tracts of undeveloped lands is sought to be determined with reference to small residential plots in developed area, it is mandatory to deduct an appropriate percentage towards development cost. But it may be unnecessary to consider whether the observations are per incuriam as para 15 of the decision makes it clear that what is stated therein, is with reference to the special facts of that case, with a view not to disturb the smaller deduction of 10% by the High Court, and not intended to be statement of law". 26. Therefore, first of all, it is clear that the contention of learned Advocate Shri Bhobe that the purpose for which the land was acquired was relevant and that the method of calculation should be based on the profits that would be made by the respondent no. 2, on the hotel business, has no legal sanctity. 27. The evidence of AW.1 and AW.3, on the expenditure made by AW.1 for the purpose of undertaking hotel project and for various licenses, construction of structures, etc. in the acquired land are the antecedents which are not at all relevant for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land. The applicant has been paid for the structures and trees which were standing on the acquired land and there is no grievance about the adequacy of the compensation thereof. 28. Admittedly, the acquired land is adjacent to the seashore, on the southern side, beyond which River Zuari lies and the evidence on record reveals that the Hotel was already constructed by the respondent no. 2, in the adjoining property, bearing old cadastral survey no. 787 (New survey no. 246/1). By standing in the acquired land, one could have a panoramic sea view all around. At the time of acquisition, there was a road from survey no. 246/2, which was constructed by the respondent no. 2. There was a car park provided at the end of the acquired land and along the boundary of the acquired land, there was a footpath to go the seashore. The place was of tourist importance. The acquired land was about five kilometres away from Panaji City and facilities like water, electricity, transport, and communication, were available to it. The acquired land was suitable for construction. It was plain and leveled land. In short, the acquired land had the scenic beauty and potential to be called as valuable land. 29. By way of Exchange Deed (ExhibitAW.1/P) dated 20/12/1978, the property of the original applicant bearing old cadastral survey nos. 788 and 789 (new survey nos. The acquired land was suitable for construction. It was plain and leveled land. In short, the acquired land had the scenic beauty and potential to be called as valuable land. 29. By way of Exchange Deed (ExhibitAW.1/P) dated 20/12/1978, the property of the original applicant bearing old cadastral survey nos. 788 and 789 (new survey nos. 246/3 and 246/4) totally admeasuring 475 square metres was exchanged with the property of the defendant no.2 bearing old cadastral survey no.390 (new survey no. 242/1) admeasuring 7500 square metres. The value of the property of the original applicant is mentioned as Rs.7500/ - that is at the rate of about Rs.15. 78 per square metre. The value of the bigger property bearing new survey no.242/1 belonging to the defendant no.2 is mentioned as Rs.25,000/- that is at the rate of about RS.3/- per square metre. The value of the transaction has been mentioned as Rs.25,000/- and stamp duty has been paid on this value since that is the greater value. If the value of the applicant's property at Rs.15.78 per square metre is considered as the basis for determination of the market value, then, even if the annual increase of 20% is made and on compounding basis, the value as on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of The Act, will not be more than Rs.23/- per square metre. 30. However, learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Bhobe wants this Court to consider the value of Rs.25,000/- as the value of the property, ofthe original applicant, admeasuring about 750 square metres since the original applicant, in exchange got the plot admeasuring 7500 square metres valued at Rs.25,000/-. If the value of the applicant's property is taken as Rs.25,000/- then the same comes to about Rs. 52.63 per square metre. Learned Advocate Shri Bhobe then pointed out that by deed of sale dated 10/3/1978 the defendant no. 1 had purchased the property of the original applicant and others bearing survey nos. 245/1(part), 243/22, 25, 243/16, 243/18, 243/20, 243/21, 243/23 and 245/1(part), totally admeasuring 1,12,631 square metres at the rate of Rs.4/- per square metre. Thus, according to Shri Bhobe, since in December 1978 by deed of exchange, the defendant no.2 had taken the property of the claimant valued at Rs. 245/1(part), 243/22, 25, 243/16, 243/18, 243/20, 243/21, 243/23 and 245/1(part), totally admeasuring 1,12,631 square metres at the rate of Rs.4/- per square metre. Thus, according to Shri Bhobe, since in December 1978 by deed of exchange, the defendant no.2 had taken the property of the claimant valued at Rs. 15.78 per square metre, that shows that the appreciation of the value of lands in the vicinity of the acquired land within nine months was almost triple. He, therefore, contended that the rate of Rs.52.63 must be made triple to arrive at the market value of the acquired land which becomes Rs.l57.89 (say Rs.158/-) per square metre. 31. With regard to the above, in our considered view, there is absolutely no merit in the submission of Shri Bhobe that Rs.25,000/ - which is the value of the transaction of the deed of exchange, (Exhibit AW.1/P) has to be taken as market value of the plot of the original applicant totally admeasuring 475 square metres and as such the market value of the applicant's plot as on 20/12/1978 was Rs.52.63 square metre. The above theory appears to be absurd on the face of it. We are not impressed by the same. 32. Be that as it may, as contended by learned Advocate Shri Usgaonkar, an exchange in terms of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act is a mutual transaction in convenience of the parties to it. In the present case, such deed of exchange was a result of settlement terms filed by the parties in Special Civil Suit no. 313/78/A. There was no agreement between the parties on market value though the entire transaction was agreed to be valued at Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of stamp duty. As has been rightly held by the Reference Court, the deed of exchange (Exhibit A w.1/P) does not give the correct basis for determination of market value of the acquired land. 33. A W.4, Shri Rajinikant Sardessai, a Civil Engineer, has prepared the valuation report at Exhibit A W4/A, wherein he has valued the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of The Act at Rs.560/- per square metre. AW.4 has stated that he inspected the acquired land on 20/4/1985, 22/2/1985 and 23/4/1985 and prepared the valuation report which is dated 25/4/1985. AW.4 has stated that he inspected the acquired land on 20/4/1985, 22/2/1985 and 23/4/1985 and prepared the valuation report which is dated 25/4/1985. However, it is pertinent to note that the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of The Act is 30/10/1980, which means that the inspection was carried out by AW.4 after about five years from the date of publication of the said notification. Besides the above, admittedly on 26/3/1985, that is prior to the inspection by AW.4, the possession of the acquired land was already handed over to respondent no. 2. Such inspection done about five years after the section 4 notification and report prepared on such inspection will have no value. It is further seen that the valuer, A W 4 has taken into consideration the deed of exchange, which could not have been relied upon for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The annexure 1 to the valuation report contains several sale instances during the period from 1976 to 1979, which, pertain to developed plots. But, the valuation report reveals that instead of deducting the cost of development/construction, etc., AW.4 has added to the said cost and has further multiplied on account of annual increase in the prices of land. As has been rightly argued by Advocate Shri Usgaonkar, the valuation report lacks professional skill and cannot be relied upon. 34. AW.1 has produced on record the certified copy of the Award of the Deputy Collector in Case No. LQN/178/80, dated 22/9/1986, as Exhibit AW.1/T. AW.1 has stated that this Award was passed at the time of the present acquisition and that the only difference was that there was no access to road from the acquired land which was subject matter of that Award. He has stated that the said acquired land was right at the border of the river and rate of compensation was Rs. 189/- per square metre. In the cross-examination of AW.l, the above facts as stated by A W. 1 have not been denied. This Award pertains to land which is near the bank of Man do vi River and is only about 3/4th kilometres away from the main Panaji City. 189/- per square metre. In the cross-examination of AW.l, the above facts as stated by A W. 1 have not been denied. This Award pertains to land which is near the bank of Man do vi River and is only about 3/4th kilometres away from the main Panaji City. The acquisition was for construction of Luxury Hotel at Gaspar Dias, Panaji, by a Private Company namely M/s Palm Hotel (India) Ltd. The parties had filed consent terms before the L.A.O. agreeing that the market price of the land was Rs. 189/- per square metre. The interested parties to the said acquisition have not been examined. The possibility that since the Company wanted that land for Five Star Hotel Complex by the side of River Mandovi and therefore had consented for a higher price, cannot be ruled out. In the present case, the price of the acquired land was not fixed by way of any consent terms. The date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of The Act, in respect of the acquired land of the said Award (AW.1/T) was 27/11/1980. There were some trees standing on the said acquired land. The area of the acquired land of the case before us is 19114 square metres which is almost double than that of the acquired land of the Award, Exhibit AW.1/T. The acquired land of the case before us is situated at Curia, Vaiguinim, Taleigao, in Panchayat area, at a distance of about five kilometres away from Panaji City, whereas the acquired land of the Award, Exhibit AW1/T is in Panaji itself about 3/4th kilometres from the main city of Panaji, and in the Municipal area. For all the above reasons and more particularly since the market price was fixed by consent of the parties, it would not be appropriate to rely upon this award as the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land of the case before us. 35. There is on record another Award dated 27/3/1980 of, the LAO. at Exhibit AW.4/D in which an area of 11073 square metres of land which was sandy type consisting of pucca structures and mainly coconut trees, was acquired for construction of the buildings for Food Craft Institute, at Miramar Panaji. The notification under section 4(1) of The Act was published on 28/6/1979. Compensation at the rate of Rs. at Exhibit AW.4/D in which an area of 11073 square metres of land which was sandy type consisting of pucca structures and mainly coconut trees, was acquired for construction of the buildings for Food Craft Institute, at Miramar Panaji. The notification under section 4(1) of The Act was published on 28/6/1979. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per square metre was fixed by the L.A.O. The acquired land was adjacent to the river beach as well as to the public road. This acquired land is also far away from the acquired land of the present case, being about five kilometres away. Therefore, this award also, cannot be the basis for fixing the market rate of the acquired land. 36. Various Sale Deeds have been produced by both the parties. But the lands concerned in these Sale Deeds are at the some distance from the acquired land. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of "Chimanlal Hargovinddas"(supra), the most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (ii) proximity from situation angle. 37. AW.1, by an agreement of sale dated 12/5/1979, had agreed to purchase the property of Machado under old cadastral survey no. 792 (New survey no. 242/1) comprising of an area of Ha. 03.65.00 of coconut grove; Ha. 0.44.80 of arecanut grove; and Ha. 12.81.00 of cashew grove, respectively at the rate of Rs. 20/-, Rs.15/- and Rs. 10/- per square metre. The said areas have been indicated in red, green and yellow colour, in the plan annexed to the said agreement. The said agreement is produced by AW.1 as ExhibitAW1/D-4. The genuineness of this agreement is not disputed. This land is adjacent to the acquired land and hence the closest one as compared to the transactions of the sale deeds relied upon by both the parties. The notification under section 4(1) of The Act, in respect of the acquired land was published in the official Gazette on 301 10/1980, whereas the date of the agreement ExhibitAW1/D-4 is 12/5/1979, which means that the transaction is proximate from time angle also. The acquired land was mainly bharad type land with coconut trees. Thus, the acquired land and the coconut land of the said agreement Exhibit AW.1/D-4 are almost similar in nature. The acquired land was mainly bharad type land with coconut trees. Thus, the acquired land and the coconut land of the said agreement Exhibit AW.1/D-4 are almost similar in nature. Therefore, in our view, this agreement is the best transaction for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired land. By the said agreement dated 12/5/1979, the coconut grove was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre. The development of the property of the respondent no. 2, adjacent to the acquired land, for hotel project, was started by the respondent no. 2 in May 1978. The acquired land which was already a valuable land on account of the scenic beauty became more valuable, by 30/10/1980, due to the already existing hotel building in the adjacent land. The agreement for sale dated 13/5/1979 is prior in date, by about more than one year, as compared to the date of notification under section 4(1) of The Act, in respect of the acquired land. On account of the development of a hotel by the side of the acquired land, in our view, firstly, the value of the lands in that locality had increased to a great extent, within a short period. Secondly, the acquired land, being adjacent to the bank of River Mandovi, was certainly superior to the land with coconut trees which was subject matter of the agreement Exhibit AW.1/D-4. Thirdly, the coconut grove agreed to be sold was a vast land and it was agreed to be sold along with other vast lands of arecanut and cashew groves. It is well settled that large tracts of land are sold for lesser price as compared to the small tracts of land. The acquired land is small as compared to the land concerned in the said agreement of sale. On account of all the above plus factors which were available for the acquired land, an increase of 80% in the price of Rs. 20/- would be reasonable and that brings the market value to Rs. 36/- per square metre. 38. Therefore we hold that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 36/per square metre, as on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of The Act. 39. The Reference Court has also arrived at the market value of Rs. 36/- per square metre, in respect of the acquired land. 36/- per square metre. 38. Therefore we hold that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 36/per square metre, as on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of The Act. 39. The Reference Court has also arrived at the market value of Rs. 36/- per square metre, in respect of the acquired land. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned Judgment and Award, though for different reasons. 40. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.