Judgment: Ranjit More, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the Judgment and Award dated 31st July, 2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.61/2003. The said land acquisition case was filed under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (“the Act” for short) for enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. metre. The said reference has been rejected by the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. By the notification dated 16th March, 1992, under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi, the restrictions as specified in clause (b) of Section 7 of the Act were imposed upon use and enjoyment of the appellant's land situated in Village Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, South Goa District being the land in the vicinity of the Naval Armament Depot, Goa. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 16th March, 2001 and concluded that the market rate of the restricted land was Rs. 28/- per sq. metre and awarded to the appellant 5% of the market rate, as compensation towards the restriction imposed on the land, i.e. Rs. 1.40 per sq. metre. Under the scheme of the Act, the compensation is granted on account of decreased market value inasmuch as the restriction on the user of land is put. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, and on perusal of the evidence, we find that there is no material brought on record by the appellant to prove the decreased market value of the land in question. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was insisting for market value of the land in question. 5. Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the matter was not properly put up before the learned Reference Court. He submits that the land in question can have development potential and that it has the same. He further submits that the appellant would like to place on record the evidence in that regard before the Reference Court. 6. Mr. He submits that the land in question can have development potential and that it has the same. He further submits that the appellant would like to place on record the evidence in that regard before the Reference Court. 6. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the land belongs to the appellant Communidade and, therefore, the same can be used for agricultural purpose and also for other purposes as mentioned in the Code of Communidades and in the absence of any evidence about development potential, no fault can be found with the impugned Judgment and Award. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and on going through the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that this is not an adversarial litigation. We find that the case of the appellant was also not properly put up before the learned Reference Court. In our considered opinion, the interest of justice would be subserved if an opportunity is given to the appellant to adduce further evidence in support of its contention that the land in question can have development potential and in fact has development potential. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal is disposed of by following order: ORDER (i) The impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside. (ii) The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for consideration of the issue in the light of the observations made herein above. Needless to mention that both the parties are at liberty to lead evidence if so advised. (iii) In the interest of justice, the learned Reference Court shall decide the reference as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (iv) Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 14th July, 2014 at 10 a.m.