JUDGMENT The appeal is filed against Judgment and Award of Land Acquisition Case No.29/2006 which was pending in the Court of District Judge (3), South Goa, Margao. The reference filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short, “The Act”), is rejected by the Trial Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3/8/2000 for the purpose of acquisition of lands for the purpose of construction of road from Igrezwado to Ashev Loyalawado in village Panchayat Majorda of Salcete Taluka. 134 square metres of portion of land under survey no.6/9 from village Majorda of the applicant was acquired under the award dated 11/6/2003. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O, for short) awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. metre. In the reference, the applicant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. metre on the basis of sale instance. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the land acquired is a part of his garden, it is of good quality and it is suitable for the purpose like agriculture, housing and industrial purpose. In respect of the compensation given by L.A.O of Rs.7560/- for loss of coconut trees, it is contended that the compensation is no just and proper and the L.A.O ought to have awarded the amount of Rs.15,000/- 4. The proceeding was contested by the present respondents/opponents. The Trial Court has rejected the claim by holding that the sale instance shown by the applicant cannot be compared with the land acquired due to many things like difference in location, availability of amenities and the potentiality of the property for development. The Trial Court has held that the applicant has failed to prove that the market price of the land acquired was more than the rate awarded by the L.A.O. In respect of the compensation claimed for loss of coconut trees, the Trial Court has held that the applicant has failed to give expert evidence to show that the value of the trees was more than the rate awarded by the L.A.O. 5. This Court has perused the record in respect of the sale instance, the award made by the L.A.O and also the evidence given by the applicant. This Court has perused the record in respect of the sale instance, the award made by the L.A.O and also the evidence given by the applicant. The record and the evidence show that a strip of land having length 22 metres and width 6 metres is acquired. The total area is around 134 sq.metres. The Government had fixed the value at Rs.60/- per sq.metre for the lands of this area. The value of Rs.5/- per sq.metre was fixed for nulla portion. Total area of survey no.6/9 was 1000 per sq.metre, as per the Form No.I and XIV of the Revenue department. 6. The boundaries of survey no.6/9 are as follows: To East – Nulla of survey no.6/5 To West - Nulla of survey no.8/4 To North - Survey no.6/8 and to the South - Survey no.6/10. No public road was passing either by the side of this survey number or from vicinity of the survey number. In such a case, to show the amenities, the claimant is expected to lead positive evidence and the revenue of the maps of the village could have been the best evidence in this regard. No evidence is given of other amenities also. 7. Oral evidence is given that the land mentioned in sale instance dated 12/2/2000, is situated at the distance of about 700 metres from the acquired land. In this regard also it can be said that it was necessary for the applicant to produce revenue maps of the village and then examine some experts to give the distance on the basis of the revenue maps in such case. The evidence of the private expert appointed by the applicant cannot be given much weight, in view of the availability of authorized record in that regard. 8. The sale instance shows that a plot admeasuring 1003 sq. metres from survey no.97 from area of 8700 sq. metres was sold. The plot had boundaries like to the East existing road, to West plot “C” from the same survey, to North nulla and to South proposed 3.00 metres width road of development plan. Development plan was made part of the sale deed. 9. In view of the aforesaid dissimilarities in the description and amenities, the Reference Court has held that the comparison of the sale instance with the land acquired is not possible. Development plan was made part of the sale deed. 9. In view of the aforesaid dissimilarities in the description and amenities, the Reference Court has held that the comparison of the sale instance with the land acquired is not possible. The Trial Court has held that the witness AW.2, Engineer examined by the applicant is not believable. This witness had deposed that he visited the site for the first time in the year 2000 and again in the year 2006 and report was prepared in the year 2006. It is noticed that in the report prepared by him, other record like revenue record etc. was not been mentioned by him. In view of the reasoning given by the trial court no creditability can be given to this witness. 10. In the proceeding which was decided by this Court from the same project under notification issued under section 4 of the Act, on 26/4/2001, portion of other property like survey no.22/12 from the same village was acquired and the decision given by the reference court on the compensation has become final. This Court had called the record of First Appeal no.238/2007 and this Court has perused the entire record from that case. As against Rs.60/-per sq. metre granted by the L.A.O, the reference court granted Rs.96/- per sq. metre. The acquired land was part and parcel of the land bearing survey no.22/12 from the same village. This survey number was having much bigger area than survey no.6/9 and out of this, portion admeasuring 857 sq. metres was sold on 17/2/1999. This sale instance was shown. The record shows that there is public road on southern side of this survey numbers adjoining to the land. Strip of land having length of 30 metres and width of 6 metres, total area of 275 sq. metres was acquired under the Act. The Reference Court held that there was no potential for construction. The Reference Court considered escalation at the rate of 10% per annum and when the price was mentioned as Rs.400/- per sq. metre in the sale deed, the reference court presumed the price as Rs.480/- per sq. metre. metres was acquired under the Act. The Reference Court held that there was no potential for construction. The Reference Court considered escalation at the rate of 10% per annum and when the price was mentioned as Rs.400/- per sq. metre in the sale deed, the reference court presumed the price as Rs.480/- per sq. metre. The minus factors like low level of the land which required filling of the land to raise the level and incurring expenses, the requirement of keeping set backs for development, the difference in availabilities of amenities like public road, which was available in the sale instance which was not available for the land acquired were considered by the reference court. The reference court deducted 80% of the price on the basis of minus factors and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.96/- per sq. metre. This decision has become final as this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Government against award given by the reference court. 11. Present notification was about 8 months earlier in time. The property acquired in the present case if compared with the property acquired in the aforesaid case, it can be said that there are few minus factors. On two sides of survey no.6/9 there are nullas. The area acquired in the present case is much less than the area acquired in the aforesaid case. The record of the two cases show that the same Presiding Officers has decided the two cases. Land Acquisition Case No.67/2005 was decided on 24/1/2007 and Land Acquisition Case No.29/2006 was decided on 28/3/2007. Thus, even if it is presumed that the sale instance in the present proceeding cannot be compared with the land acquired and the record of the acquisition from the same village is considered, it can be said that the potentiality of the land acquired in the present case was less for development and there were other minus factors in the present case. In any case, the appellant failed in the present case to prove that the market value of the land acquired was more than the value fixed by the L.A.O. 12. The Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some reported cases. In the case of [2010] 1 SCC 444 “Subh Ram and Others Vs. In any case, the appellant failed in the present case to prove that the market value of the land acquired was more than the value fixed by the L.A.O. 12. The Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some reported cases. In the case of [2010] 1 SCC 444 “Subh Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana and another” In this case, the Apex Court has discussed the factors determining percentage of deduction towards development cost for determination of market value. In the case reported in [ 2009 10 SC 686 ] “State of Goa and another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others” where a strip of land was acquired, the Apex Court held that only because a strip of land was acquired, it cannot be said that the land was without value or without any potential for development. In the third case reported in [2012 (1) Goa L.R. 704] 'Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Shri Mulla Abdul Samad and Others”, this Court made similar observations. There cannot be any dispute over the propositions made in the aforesaid three reported cases. In each and every case, the facts are different and so the claims are required to be decided accordingly. In the present case, fortunately, this Court had an opportunity to consider the record of the case of acquisition from the same village, for the same project and so the claim of the applicant is considered accordingly. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the decision given by the reference court and so the appeal stands dismissed.