Judgment 1. Heard Mr. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned advocate for the respondents. 2. By this appeal, the appellants have taken exception to the Judgment and Award dated 23/01/2004 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa (“Reference Court”, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 110/1997. 3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of Land Acquisition Case No. 110/1997. 4. Vide Government Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L.A. Act” for short), and published in Official Gazette dated 03/10/1996, land admeasuring 4000 square metres was acquired from survey holdings no. 72/7 and 72/8, situated at village Xeldem and belonging to the applicant, for construction of extension to the Government Primary School Building. By Award dated 24/02/1997, the respondent no. 1 (L.A.O.) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 58/-per square metre to the acquired land. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the applicant sought reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.700/-per square metre. The said reference came to be registered as Land Acquisition Case no. 110/1997. 5. The applicant examined himself and produced two sale deeds, whereas the respondents did not examine any witness. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court accepted the sale deed at Exhibit 23 which pertains to the plot from the same property of the applicant, from which the land was acquired, as basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land and by making appropriate deductions, for reasons mentioned in the Judgment, enhanced the marked value to Rs. 245/-per square metre. The applicant has also been given all the statutory benefits under L.A. Act. 7. The respondents are aggrieved by the judgment and award and have filed this appeal. 8. Perused the entire record and proceedings. 9. The short 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. 10. AW-1, who is the applicant has produced the sale deed dated 13/05/1991 at Exhibit 23 which pertains to a plot from the same property bearing survey no. 72/7 from which another portion has been acquired. 10. AW-1, who is the applicant has produced the sale deed dated 13/05/1991 at Exhibit 23 which pertains to a plot from the same property bearing survey no. 72/7 from which another portion has been acquired. He has stated that the said property is located in the settlement zone and that the plot sold for Rs.250/-is from the same property bearing survey no.72/7. He has stated that his said property bears only two sub-divisions and the portion in survey no.72/7 as also the portion in survey no. 72/8, is touching the road which goes from Quepem to Sanvordem. The above facts has stated by AW-1 have not being denied in his cross-examination. Besides the above, the plan annexed to the Award of the L.A.O. shows that the applicant's land under Survey No. 72/8 has Quepem – Curchorem Road, on the north-western side and a new road going from Got morod to Kakoda, on the north-eastern side. The Sale Deed, Exhibit 23, speaks for itself. The property of the applicant, therefore had good potential for development. 11. It was contended by Shri. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate that more than 30% of the deduction should be made from the price of the plot of the Sale Deed, Exhibit 23 since the acquired land admeasures 4000 square meters, whereas the plot of the said sale deed has area of only about 538 square metres, which is very small. He relied upon "Subh Ram and others v/s. State of Harayana and another"[(2010)1 SCC 444]. He read out the paragraphs no. 11 to 14 of the said judgment. I have gone through the said judgment and in my view that does not support the contention of Shri. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate. 12. In the present case the learned Reference Court has taken into account the said aspect of the smallness of the Sale Deed plot which was undeveloped. Since, there is a gap of four years between the transaction of sale deed and the acquisition, the appreciation at 10% per annum has been made for a period of four years. Since the plot sold by the Exhibit 23 was a smaller plot and further since the same was abutting the said high way, a deduction of 30% has been made and thus the compensation has been arrived at Rs. 245/-per square metre, which in my considered view also, is just and reasonable. 13. Since the plot sold by the Exhibit 23 was a smaller plot and further since the same was abutting the said high way, a deduction of 30% has been made and thus the compensation has been arrived at Rs. 245/-per square metre, which in my considered view also, is just and reasonable. 13. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award is in accordance with the settled principles of law pertaining to the determination of market value of the acquired lands. The impugned judgment has been passed on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Nothing has been shown by the learned Government Advocate warranting interference with the impugned judgment and award. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.