Judgment : Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12/09/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 61/2004. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the said L.A.C. No. 61/2004. The appellants are the legal representatives of original applicant. 4. Vide preliminary notification published under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), in the official gazette dated 2/8/2001, the Government proposed to acquire land for development of swimming pool and Multipurpose Sports Complex at Chaudi, Canacona. That included an area of 113 square metres from survey no. 62/1 (part) of village Chaudi. By award dated 21/11/2003, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. metre. The original applicant who owned land bearing survey no. 62/1 filed an application under section 18 of the L. A. Act before the L.A.O. and he made reference to the District Court, South Goa, Margao, which gave rise to the said L.A.C No. 61/2004. 5. In the reference application, the original applicant stated that the total area of his paddy field was 187 sq. metres and by acquisition of only 113 sq. metres, the balance area of 74 sq.metres has been rendered useless for any purpose. He submitted that the acquired land is about 200 metres away from the artery of Canacona and is adjoining the highway and had vast potential of being converted into residential area as it was in close proximity of residential houses. He further submitted that the St. Theresa School, Church, main market, State Bank of India, Doctor's Dispensary, Municipal Council Building and Government schools are within 150 metres from the acquired land; Government hospital, Public Works Department, Excise Department, Sub Registrar's office and Post Office are within a radius of 500 metres; Cinema theatre, Goa State Co-operative Bank, Railway station are within a radius of 750 metres and Police Station, Civil Court, Government Higher Secondary are within a radius of 1000 metres. He further stated that electricity, telephone, tap water and transport facility was available to the acquired land. He further stated that electricity, telephone, tap water and transport facility was available to the acquired land. According to him, similar land had been sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. metre, at the relevant time. The original applicant, therefore, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. metre for the entire area of 187 sq. metres. 6. Accordingly, issues came to be framed by the Reference Court. The applicant examined himself as AW.1 and produced a sale deed dated 25/9/1985 as Exhibit 13, a sale deed dated 30/6/1994 as Exhibit 14, a sale deed dated 28/4/1999 as Exhibit 15 and a sale deed dated 8/5/2000 as Exhibit 16. AW.1 produced Judgment and Award dated 13/4/1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in L.A.C. No. 223/1990 as Exhibit 17 and Judgment and Award dated 10/7/2003 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, South Goa Margao, in L.A.C No. 88/1995 as Exhibit 18. AW.1 produced the Form No. I and XIV of survey no. 62/1 of Chaudi village as Exhibit 19 and Survey Plan of the same at Exhibit 20. He produced the Form No. I and XIV of survey no. 8/1 as Exhibit 21 and that of survey no. 177/3 as Exhibit 22. AW.1 also produced an interim Statement of Minimum Land Rates published by the Government for objections and suggestions as Exhibit 23. He produced the award dated 21/11/2003 passed by the L.A.O., in respect of the acquired land as Exhibit 24. The applicant then examined an Engineer and Valuer Shri Vikas Dessai as AW.2. The valuation report of AW.2 is at Exhibit 27. He valued the land at Rs. 393.30 per sq. metre. 7. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court found that the applicant did not produce any document or material to show yield of the said paddy field and therefore, the market value of the acquired land cannot be ascertained on the basis of income from the said paddy field. He further held that the sale deeds which are at Exhibits 13,14 and 16 are not comparable instances. The learned Reference Court held that the sale deed dated 28/4/1999 at Exhibit 15 is to be considered for determination of the market value of the acquired land. He further held that the sale deeds which are at Exhibits 13,14 and 16 are not comparable instances. The learned Reference Court held that the sale deed dated 28/4/1999 at Exhibit 15 is to be considered for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Considering the aspect of conversion, development and of filling up, the learned Reference Court held that deduction of 50% from the price of the sale deed will have to be done in order to arrive at the just market value of the acquired land. The price of the sale deed plot was Rs.300/- per sq. metre. He, therefore, held that Rs. 150/-per sq. metre is the market value of the acquired land. The Reference Court held that an area admeasuring 50.35 sq. metres of the paddy field belonging to the applicant has been rendered useless on account of severance and therefore, the applicant is entitled to severance charges. He fixed severance charges at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. metre. Accordingly, the reference was partly allowed by fixing the market value of the acquired land admeasuring 113 sq.metres at Rs. 150/- per sq. metre and severance charges for un-acquired portion at the rate of Rs. 70/-per sq. metre. The applicant was held to be entitled to all the statutory benefits. It has also been also directed that the amount already paid towards the land shall be adjusted. 8. The respondents are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award and have filed the present appeal. 9. Assailing the impugned judgment and award, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the acquired land was admittedly a paddy field and that the evidence on record reveals that the same was about one and half metre below the level of the road. She submitted that all the sale deeds produced by the applicant including Exhibit 15 considered by the learned Reference Court pertained to developed plots meant for construction and, therefore, they could not have been taken as comparable instances. Without prejudice to the above, according to her, even if the sale deed at Exhibit 15 is to be considered, then, at least about 65% to 70% of deduction has to be made since the acquired land required filling up and conversion if it had to be used for construction purposes. Without prejudice to the above, according to her, even if the sale deed at Exhibit 15 is to be considered, then, at least about 65% to 70% of deduction has to be made since the acquired land required filling up and conversion if it had to be used for construction purposes. She also submitted that the un-acquired land was not rendered useless since it was accessible to road and cultivation could have been made thereon. According to her, even otherwise Rs.70/- per sq. metre as severance charges is exorbitant. She pointed out that the rate has been enhanced from Rs. 20/- offered by the L.A.O to Rs. 150/- which cannot be termed as just and reasonable. She, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed and set aside and compensation towards acquired land needs to be reduced adequately. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the learned Reference Court has minutely taken into account all the aspects and has arrived at reasonable market value. He pointed out that just like the acquired land, the plot of Sale Deed at Exhibit 15 was below the road level and was a paddy field prior to its conversion and was having area of only 313 sq. metres and being in close proximity of the acquired land was most suitable instance for determination of the market value. He submitted that in fact the deduction of 50% is on the higher side. The learned Counsel further pointed out that though the said sale deed was of the year 1999, however, the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was of the year 2001, inspite of which the learned Reference Court has not given any escalation due to the said gap between the two. He, therefore, urged that no interference at all is called for with the impugned judgment and award. 11. I have gone through the original record and proceedings and I have also considered the submissions canvassed by both the parties. 12. The point for determination is whether the learned Reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 20/- per sq. metre to Rs.150/- per sq. metre and in granting severance charges at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. metre for the un-acquired land. 12. The point for determination is whether the learned Reference Court has erred in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 20/- per sq. metre to Rs.150/- per sq. metre and in granting severance charges at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. metre for the un-acquired land. Upon re-appraisal of the material on record, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Advocate are not acceptable. 13. There is no dispute that while determining the market value of the land, the sale transaction of similar type of land, situated within close proximity, having taken place in close proximity of the date of acquisition and having more or less similar area is the best instance. If similar type of land is subsequently developed and sold, then appropriate deduction in value can be made, by taking into consideration the extent and nature of the development and expenses required for the same. The percentage of deduction may vary between 20% to 75% depending upon several circumstances (See “Lal Chand V. Union Of India” [ (2009) 15 SCC 769 ]. Judicial notice must also be taken of the fact that the price of the lands go on increasing. 14. The relevant date for determination of the market value is 2/8/2001. The date of the sale deed at Exhibit 15 is 28/4/1999. Thus, the transaction of the sale deed is about two years prior to the relevant date. The acquired land as well as the plot of the sale deed at Exhibit 15 are at Chaudi-Canacona. The area of the acquired land is 113 sq. metres but there is un-acquired land of the applicant, adjoining the acquired land, which has an area fo 50.35 sq. metres which means that the area of the land of the applicant was 163.35 sq. metres. A perusal of the sale deed at Exhibit 15 reveals that the plot admeasures 313 sq,.metres. Thus, both lands have small area. Admittedly, the acquired land was a paddy field adjoining the National Highway, and was lying about one metre below the level of the said Highway. The plot of the sale deed is out of survey no. 177/3. The Form No. I & XIV which is at Exhibit 22 of the said survey holding no. 177/3 shows that the same is a paddy field known as “Rumadk”. The plot of the sale deed is out of survey no. 177/3. The Form No. I & XIV which is at Exhibit 22 of the said survey holding no. 177/3 shows that the same is a paddy field known as “Rumadk”. The sale deed reveals that the plot has been detached from the said paddy field. It is further seen that the plot is adjoining the National Highway on the southern side. It has also come on record that the said plot of the sale deed was below the level of the said highway. Thus, the nature of both the lands was similar and both had several similar advantages and disadvantages. The evidence on record proves that the acquired land is only about 50 to 60 metres away from the said sale deed plot. The evidence of the expert, AW 2 reveals that the sale deed plot is situated diagonally opposite to the acquired land. I have perused the contents of the other sale deeds and awards produced by AW 1. In my view, they are rightly discarded by the Reference Court. I am in full agreement with the finding of the Reference Court that the plot of sale deed at Exhibit 15 is the best for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The evidence of AW.1 and AW.2 reveals that the acquired land had excellent potentialities and it was served with electricity, tap water, telephone, transport and was also close to church, high schools, bus-stand, bank, Government offices, municipal council, dispensaries etc. In the sale deed plot, a ground plus two storeys commercial building has been erected. This activity of construction was going on at the time of acquisition. On account of the above, the Reference Court has observed that construction activity could be carried out only after converting the user of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural land and that the conversion was for construction purpose. There is no evidence on record to show that the sale deed plot was already a developed plot for the purpose of construction. The acquired land was, however, a paddy field below the level of the Highway by about one metre and conversion was not obtained. In such circumstances, the deduction of 50% made by the learned Reference Court cannot be taken as unreasonable and less than what was required, in the facts and circumstances. The acquired land was, however, a paddy field below the level of the Highway by about one metre and conversion was not obtained. In such circumstances, the deduction of 50% made by the learned Reference Court cannot be taken as unreasonable and less than what was required, in the facts and circumstances. It should be kept in mind that the said sale deed at Exhibit 15 is dated 18/4/1999, whereas the relevant date for determination of the market value is 2/8/2001, which means that there was a gap of two years. The learned Reference Court has not given any annual escalation on account of the said gap. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that deduction of at least 65% to 70% had to be made, is not acceptable. The valuation made by AW 2 is, no doubt, on a higher side. The compensation of Rs. 150/- per sq. metre, fixed by the Reference Court, for the acquired land, in my view, is proper. 15. The Form No. I & XIV of survey no. 62/1 at Exhibit 19 shows that the total area of the said paddy field of the applicant was 187 sq. metres. The evidence on record in the form of the plan produced by AW2, the valuer, reveals that a portion having area of 23.65 sq. metres was earlier acquired for widening of the road and an area of 50.35 sq. metres has been left un-acquired by the side of the road and has been rendered useless. AW1 in his affidavit-evidence has stated that the Government had earlier acquired some area for the purpose of road widening by another notification and that presently the Government has acquired an area of 113 sq. metres and due to the said two acquisitions, an area of 50.35 sq. metres has been sandwitched between the land of the first acquisition and that of the second acquisition and that the said area has become useless. The compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. metre, which is less than half of the compensation fixed for the acquired land, is just and proper compensation for the said unacquired land, towards severance charges. 16. In view of discussion supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and award is in accordance with the settled principles of law based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. 16. In view of discussion supra, I am of the considered opinion that 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 called for with the same. 17. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.