Judgment U.V. Bakre, J. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 20/02/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as “ the Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Case No.56/2000. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case no.56/2000. 3. Vide Notification bearing No.22/123/89-RD dated 25/9/1989, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) and published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/1989, the Government acquired land for the purpose of construction of bypass road to Ponda town on NH 4A between Km. 121/950 to 116/200. Land admeasuring 250 square metres from survey holding no.242/1 situated at Bandora, Ponda and belonging to the applicants was acquired for the said purpose. By Award dated 15/3/1992, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (“L.A.O”, for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs.55/-per square metre. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the applicants made an application under Section 18 of the Act to the L.A.O, which gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No.56/2000. 4. The applicants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300/-per square metre. They also stated in the reference application that the bypass forms the part of highway due to which their remaining area will be hit by the setback rules & they would be required to keep further setback of 20 metres on account of the construction of the road and, therefore, they are entitled for compensation in respect of the said land which could fall within the setback area. 5. The applicants examined the Applicant no.1 Mulla Abdul Samad as AW.1. He produced two sale deeds: one dated 21/7/1989 as Exhibit 11 and the other dated 20/12/1991 as Exhibit 12. The applicants also produced the valuation report prepared by one Shri Ravindra V. Tamba, an Engineer and approved valuer, as Exhibit 13. However, said Ravindra Tamba has not been examined. The Respondents examined the Assistant Engineer, Works Division. XV, Sub-Division-I, P.W.D, Government of Goa, namely Mr. Vijay Mardolkar as RW.1. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the market rate of the acquied land at Rs.75/-per square metre. However, said Ravindra Tamba has not been examined. The Respondents examined the Assistant Engineer, Works Division. XV, Sub-Division-I, P.W.D, Government of Goa, namely Mr. Vijay Mardolkar as RW.1. 6. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the market rate of the acquied land at Rs.75/-per square metre. The Reference Court has held that there is no evidence on record to show that any additional area falls in the set back area on account of construction of the road and hence the applicants are not entitled for any additional compensation. All the statutory benefits have been given to the applicants. 7. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Award, the Respondents have filed the present appeal. 8. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate ( A.G.A.), on behalf of the respondents, urged that the market value fixed by the Reference Court in respect of the acquired land is excessive and in fact, there is no evidence adduced of comparable sale instances to justify the grant of enhancement in the market value. He argued that the evidence of AW.1 reveals that there were developed and sub-divided plots close to the acquired land, but the applicants have not produced any sale deed pertaining to such plots. According to the learned A.G.A., comparable sale instance cannot be any sale instance. He contended that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the sale deed at Exhibit 11 pertains to a plot which is similar in nature to the acquired land. He also pointed out that a mosque known as Safa Masjid which is an ancient monument is within a distance of 200 metres from the acquired land and no construction was possible within a distance of 300 metres from the said ancient monument. He argued that the sale deed at Exhibit 11 could not have been considered. The learned A.G.A. is therefore, of the view that the offer of Rs.55/-per square metre made by the L.A.O is just and reasonable and the enhancement made by the learned Reference Court is not sustainable. 9. He argued that the sale deed at Exhibit 11 could not have been considered. The learned A.G.A. is therefore, of the view that the offer of Rs.55/-per square metre made by the L.A.O is just and reasonable and the enhancement made by the learned Reference Court is not sustainable. 9. Per contra, Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the applicants, contended that there is no law as such of keeping setback of 40 metres and no such law was shown by the respondents inspite of which a deduction has been made by the Reference Court in the price of the sale deed plot, on the ground of the said setback. He pointed out from the evidence that the property of the applicants which is remaining after acquisition has several houses. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “State of Goa and another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others”[ (2009) 10 S.C.C 686 ], the learned Senior Counsel argued that merely because the acquired land is a strip of land acquired for the purpose of road, it cannot be treated as land without value or without potential for development. He further contended that no evidence has been brought on record to prove that Safa Masjid has been declared as an ancient protected monument and that no construction is allowed within a distance of 300 metres from the same. He, further submitted that the sale instance which is at Exhibit 11 is of a date which is very close to the date of acquisition & the plot of the said sale deed lies at a close distance from the acquired land and therefore, the sale deed has been rightly considered by the learned Reference Court. Learned Senior Counsel is otherwise of the view that the deductions made by the learned Reference Court are excessive. But since no appeal has been filed by the applicants, he would urge that the impugned judgment and award enhancing the market rate only to Rs.75/-, though the claim of the claimants was Rs.300/-per square metre, should be maintained. He, thus, justified the market rate fixed by the Reference Court. 10. We have perused the entire record and proceedings, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. He, thus, justified the market rate fixed by the Reference Court. 10. We have perused the entire record and proceedings, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The point that arises for our determination is whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and is liable to be set aside. appeal has been filed by the applicants, he would urge that the impugned judgment and award enhancing the market rate only to Rs.75/-, though the claim of the claimants was Rs.300/-per square metre, should be maintained. He, thus, justified the market rate fixed by the Reference Court. 12. The evidence of AW.1 duly proves that the acquired land is close to the Ponda town and the market at Ponda is only about 1.5 kilometres away. According to AW.1, Safa Masjid is at a distance of about 300 metres away from the acquired land but according to RW.1 it is about 200 metres away. Ponda Sports Complex and the Ponda bus-stand are about 500 metres away. There is Almeida High School & College at a distance of about 1 kilometre from the acquired land. The evidence on record reveals that there are several houses situated near the acquired land and all the amenities like electricity, water, transport are available to the acquired land. The acquired land is bharad land of hard soil which is ideal for construction. There is no evidence on record to show that Safa Masjid is a protected ancient monument and that no construction is permissible from a distance of 300 metres from it. No such point was raised before the Reference Court and the same is also not raised as a ground in the Memo of appeal. The acquired land touches the road and therefore, is directly accessible. In his Affidavit-in-Evidence, AW.1 has stated that the bypass road, which forms the part of the highway, would affect the remaining land of his property on account of setback rules and, therefore, additional compensation should be given for the setback land. A suggestion has been put to AW.1 that the value of his remaining property is enhanced on account of the construction of the said bypass road. The above means that admittedly there is remaining property after acquisition which belongs to the applicants. A suggestion has been put to AW.1 that the value of his remaining property is enhanced on account of the construction of the said bypass road. The above means that admittedly there is remaining property after acquisition which belongs to the applicants. Hence, merely because the acquired land is a strip of land acquired for road it cannot be said that the same is land without value or without any potential for development. In the case of “Gopal Baburao Gaudo & ors” (supra), the Apex Court has held that a long strip of land adjoining the highway cannot be treated as land without value or without any potential for development merely on the ground that law relating to highways prohibited construction on either side of the highway, upto a depth of 40 metres from centre of the highway. It has been held that potential of such land could be realised by annexing or merging said strip of land with land to its rear and in that event, the strip of land would become “access” to rear side land from main road & would also become frontage of the aggregate land, thereby enhancing potential and value of rear side land, as also creating a potential for its own use. 13. AW.1 in his Affidavit-in-Evidence has specifically stated that the adjoining land, sold at the rate of Rs.232/-per square metre in the year 1989, is similar to the acquired land. The said adjoining land forms a part of the sale deed which is at Exhibit 11 and is dated 21/7/1989. The applicant had also produced another sale deed dated 20/12/1991 as Exhibit 12 which has been rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court, since it is a post notification transaction. We do not find any reason as to why the sale deed which is at Exhibit 11 and which is dated 21/7/1989 could not have been considered by the Reference Court. The date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, in respect of the acquired land, is 24/11/1989. The sale instance, being dated 21/7/1989 is in close proximity of the relevant date for determination of the market value of the acquired land. In his cross-examination, AW.1 has stated that the said sale deed plot is about one kilometre away from the acquired land. Thus, it is also in close proximity, insofar as the distance factor is concerned. The sale instance, being dated 21/7/1989 is in close proximity of the relevant date for determination of the market value of the acquired land. In his cross-examination, AW.1 has stated that the said sale deed plot is about one kilometre away from the acquired land. Thus, it is also in close proximity, insofar as the distance factor is concerned. The acquired land admeasures 250 square metres whereas the plot of the sale deed admeasures 516 square metres. The difference in area is also not unreasonable. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned A.G.A. that there is no evidence on record adduced in respect of the comparability of the sale instance with the acquired land. In so far as the plus and minus factors are concerned, we find that appropriate deductions have been made since the plot of the sale deed is a developed plot and is situated within the Municipal area. 14. On the ground that the sale deed plot is a developed sub-divided plot whereas the acquired land is undeveloped, the Reference Court has made a deduction of 40% in the price of the sale deed plot. Under the premise that the sale deed plot is situated within the Municipal area where all the amenities are available whereas the acquired land is situated in the panchayat area, and that the lands situated in the cities and towns have better value as compared to the plots situated in villages, the learned Reference Court has considered this as a disadvantageous factor, on account of which a further deduction of 20% has been made. 15. Relying upon “Dy. Collector (Dev) & Land Acquisition Officer and another V. Vithal Biku Patekar” [1998(2) Goa L.T. 474], since the acquired land was within the setback area and holding that it had no construction potentiality, the learned Reference Court has made a further deduction of 33%. 15. Relying upon “Dy. Collector (Dev) & Land Acquisition Officer and another V. Vithal Biku Patekar” [1998(2) Goa L.T. 474], since the acquired land was within the setback area and holding that it had no construction potentiality, the learned Reference Court has made a further deduction of 33%. As already stated above, since the applicants had claimed that they had balance land beyond the said acquired land and since the respondents themselves have put a suggestion to AW.1 that the value of the remaining property of the applicants has been enhanced on account of construction of bypass road, it could have been held that the applicants had additional land beyond the acquired land and in terms of the judgment in the case of “Gopal Baburao Gaudo and ors”(supra), the applicants land had value or potential for development. 16. However, considering the deductions made by the Reference Court in the price of the plot of the sale deed Exhibit 11, the market rate of Rs.75/-per square metre arrived at by the Reference Court cannot be held to be unjust or unreasonable. We find that that same is justified. The point for determination is therefore answered in the negative. 17. In our view, the impugned judgment and award is in accordance with the settled principles of law based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. No interference is, therefore, called for. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.