Judgment U.V. Bakre, J. 1. This common judgment shall dispose of the above three Appeals as they pertain to similar type of land situated in the same locality, acquired vide the same notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short). 2. First Appeal No. 223/2009 arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 06.07.2009 passed by the learned District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao ('Reference Court' for short), in Land Acquisition Case No. 59/2008. First Appeal No. 229/2009 is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 06.08.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 63/2008. Lastly, First Appeal No. 232/2009 is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 21.07.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 60/2008. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the L. A. Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 23.11.2006 and lastly published at the concerned places through the Mamlatdar of Salcete on 11.12.2006, Government acquired land for construction of missing link of National Highway 17-B in Loutolim village at Verna Industrial Estate of Salcete Taluka. 4. FIRST APPEAL NO. 223/2009 : LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO. 59/2008. The acquisition included the land of the applicant in Land Acquisition Case No. 59/2008, bearing survey numbers 227/7 (part), 228/1 (part) and 229/5 (part) of Loutolim Village. An area of 350 square metres was acquired from survey no. 227/7(part); an area of 577 square metres was acquired from survey no. 228/1(part); and an area of 369 square metres was acquired from survey no. 229/5. The learned Land Acquisition Officer( L.A.O., for short) classified the entire acquired land as bharad land and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre and also granted an amount of Rs. 24,891.30/- for the gadga wall of 100 metre length situated in survey no. 229/5. The applicant filed application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before the L.A.O. thereby claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per square metre which gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 59/2008. Accordingly, issues were framed by the Reference Court. The applicant examined her constituted attorney namely Estefania D'Cruz as AW1 and she produced sale deed dated 10.3.1997 as Exhibit 13 and sale deed dated 25.7.2007 as Exhibit 14. 1000/- per square metre which gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 59/2008. Accordingly, issues were framed by the Reference Court. The applicant examined her constituted attorney namely Estefania D'Cruz as AW1 and she produced sale deed dated 10.3.1997 as Exhibit 13 and sale deed dated 25.7.2007 as Exhibit 14. The applicant examined Shri Mahendra Kakule, an Engineer-cum-Registered Valuer, as AW2 who produced his valuation report at Exhibit 19. The respondents did not examine any witness. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned Reference Court enhanced compensation of the acquired land to Rs. 700/- per square metre and further awarded sum of Rs. 24,393.18/-towards the gadga wall of the length of 55 metres situated in acquired land from survey no. 227/7(part) and of the length of 43 metres situated in acquired land from survey no. 228/1(part). All statutory benefits have also been awarded. 5. FIRST APPEAL NO. 229/2009 : LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO. 63/2008. The said acquisition also included land admeasuring 1363 square metres from survey no. 184/1 part of Loutolim Village belonging to the applicants in Land Acquisition Case No. 63/2008. The learned L.A.O. classified the land as bharad land and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O. the applicants filed the application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before the L.A.O., thereby claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per square metre, which gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 63/2008. Accordingly, an issue was framed by the Reference Court. The applicants examined Alexander Araujo @ Alexander Perpetua Nascimento Araujo as AW1. He produced sale deed dated 25.7.2007 as Exhibit 17 and sale deed dated 10.3.1997 as Exhibit 18. The applicants also examined Shri Mahendra Kakule an expert as AW2 who produced his valuation report at Exhibit 22. The respondents did not examine any witness. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned Reference Court enhanced compensation of the acquired land to Rs. 700/- per square metre and also awarded all statutory benefits under the L. A. Act. 6. FIRST APPEAL NO. 232/2009 : LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO. 60 OF 2008. The same acquisition also included an area of 1469 square metres of land from survey no.186/1 (part), 475 square metres from survey no. 228/2 (part) and 843 square metres from survey no. 700/- per square metre and also awarded all statutory benefits under the L. A. Act. 6. FIRST APPEAL NO. 232/2009 : LAND ACQUISITION CASE NO. 60 OF 2008. The same acquisition also included an area of 1469 square metres of land from survey no.186/1 (part), 475 square metres from survey no. 228/2 (part) and 843 square metres from survey no. 228/4 (part) of Loutolim Village, belonging to the applicants in Land Acquisition Case No. 60/2008. The learned L.A.O. classified the entire acquired land as bharad land and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square metre and further awarded a sum of ' 26,085/-towards the value of the trees. Not being satisfied with the offer made by the L.A.O., the applicants made application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act before the LAO thereby claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per square metre which gave rise to the Land Acquisition Case No. 60/2008. Accordingly, issues were framed. The applicants examined Shri Vivek Gomes, legal heir of applicant no. 1 as AW1. He produced survey plans at Exhibit 12 colly, sale deed dated 10.3.1997 as Exhibit 13 and sale deed dated 27.5.2007 at Exhibit 14. The applicants also examined Shri Mahendra Kakule, an engineer-cum-registered valuer, as AW2, who produced his valuation report as Exhibit 23. The respondents did not examine any witness. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned Reference Court enhanced compensation of the acquired land to Rs. 700/- per square metre. 7. Aggrieved by the judgments and Award in said Land Acquisition Cases, the respondents have filed the above appeals. 8. Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the relevant date for determination of the market value of the acquired land was 11.12.2006 whereas one of the sale deeds considered by the Reference Court was very old dated 10.3.1997 which ought not to have been considered on account of big gap. He further pointed out that plot of the sale deed dated 25.7.2007 was post notification and besides that it was in respect of a fully developed plot of a smaller size as compared to the acquired land and therefore, the same also could not have been considered. In the alternative, Mr. Naik pointed out that the Reference Court made a deduction of only 5% towards development charges which according to him is arbitrary and erroneous. In the alternative, Mr. Naik pointed out that the Reference Court made a deduction of only 5% towards development charges which according to him is arbitrary and erroneous. He submitted that deduction of 1/3rd ought to have been made towards development charges and further deduction ought to have been made on account of the smallness of size of the sale deed plot. He pointed out that merely because the acquired land was situated in settlement zone, Reference Court held that no conversion was required. He submitted that conversion would be required for such lands also. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra V/s. Union of India (UOI)" reported in [2014 (12) SCALE 248]. He therefore, urged that the appropriate deduction of 1/3rd towards development charges and further adequate deduction on account of small size of sale deed plot be made and compensation be reduced accordingly. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the transaction of sale deed dated 25.7.2007 was only few months after the date of notification and that the said sale instance was genuine and very proximate and the acquisition had not motivated purchaser to pay higher price. In this regard, he relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of:- i. Balchandra Anant Wagle and others V/s. Land Acquisition Officer and others, [ 2012 (5) Bom.C.R. 240 ] ii. Land Acquisition Officer PWD (Cell) and another v/s. Shantaram J. S. Kantak, [2011 (1) Bom. C.R.121]. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the acquired land was not totally undeveloped land and it was of such a nature that no much development would have been required. He therefore, urged that the deduction of 5% has been rightly been made by the Reference Court and therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned Awards. 11. I have gone through the original record and proceedings, in each case. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also the judgments relied upon by them. 12. The point that arises for my determination in all the appeals is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable or whether it requires reduction. 13. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also the judgments relied upon by them. 12. The point that arises for my determination in all the appeals is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable or whether it requires reduction. 13. The evidence on record in each case reveals that facilities like water connection, telephone, electricity and transport were available to the acquired lands and major amenities like shops, schools, restaurants, chapel, were very close to the acquired land. The acquired lands had no encumbrances and were accessible to road. The evidence on record also shows that the acquired land fell in settlement zone and therefore suitable for construction. In portion of Survey no. 229/5, which was not acquired, there was a residential house and a garage and in the portion of survey no. 227/7, which was not acquired, there was an old structure, already existing. There were residential houses in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands. No doubt, learned Reference court wrongly held that there was no need for land conversion. Even if property fell in the settlement zone, conversion of the land would be required and admittedly the same was not done in respect of the acquired land, in all the above cases. Some expenses were bound to be incurred for conversion if the acquired land were to be used for construction purposes. A perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court reveals that the sale deed dated 10.03.1997 has not been considered by the learned Reference Court individually. The learned Reference Court considered the same only for knowing the trend of price of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land. It was found that the rates of lands had not increased by 10% annually, during the intervening period of the two sale deeds. In fact, since there was a gap of about 5 months between the date of sale deed dated 25.07.2007 and the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the L. A., Act, some increase in the rate ought to have been granted because it is a settled law that prices of land goes on increasing annually. In fact, since there was a gap of about 5 months between the date of sale deed dated 25.07.2007 and the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the L. A., Act, some increase in the rate ought to have been granted because it is a settled law that prices of land goes on increasing annually. However, on the basis of both the sale deeds, considering that individually the acquired land from each survey number was small in area, the learned Reference Court held that the market value of the land in the locality of the acquired land at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act was Rs. 700/- per square metre. In Land Acquisition Cases No. 60/2008 and 63/2008, the learned Reference Court further observed that the land in vicinity was sold at the rate of Rs. 742 per square metre, and by making deduction of Rs. 42/-i.e. about 5%, towards development charges, the market value comes to Rs. 700/- per square metre. The learned reference Court therefore held that the market value of the acquired land was proved to be Rs. 700/- per square metre. 14. It is true that the sale transaction in respect of the said sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was post notification. But the gap was very small being about 5 months, since the date of last publication of notification under Section 4 of the L. A., Act was 11.12.2006. In the case of "Balchandra Anant Wagle and others" (supra), this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Chimanlal Hargovinddas v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona" reported in [A.I.R. 1988 SC 1652] wherein it has been held that even post notification instances can be taken into account: (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself had not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in the development prospects. In the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest that the purchaser of the sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was motivated in the manner as above. Therefore, said sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was rightly considered by the learned Reference Court. In the present case, there was nothing on record to suggest that the purchaser of the sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was motivated in the manner as above. Therefore, said sale deed dated 25.07.2007 was rightly considered by the learned Reference Court. The said sale deed plot was in very close proximity with the acquired land distance wise as well as nature wise and was also very close to the date of notification. 15. A perusal of the sale deed dated 25.7.2007 reveals that plot of said sale deed was fully developed plot. Provisional NOC for sub-division of the property was obtained from Town and Country Planning Department. Provisional NOC for sub-division of property was also obtained from the Village Panchayat of Loutolim and the office of the Collector had issued conversion sanad thereby granting permission to the vendor for using the plot for residential use. Sale deed further reveals that property was developed and plots bearing no. 2 admeasuring 491 square metres and no. 3 admeasuring 443 square metres respectively were purchased for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 742/- per square metre. As compared to the above, in respect of the acquired land no conversion sanad was obtained nor NOCs for development were obtained. Merely because, the acquired land was falling in settlement zone, that cannot mean that they were fully developed lands. 16. In the case of "Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to various earlier judgments has held that in fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land was acquired. It has been held that rule of 1/3rd deduction towards development appears to be the general rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that percentage of deduction for development of land to be made in Delhi Development Authority is concerned, or similar statutory authorities, with reference to various types of layout was succinctly considered by the Court in Lal Chand Vs. It has been held that rule of 1/3rd deduction towards development appears to be the general rule. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that percentage of deduction for development of land to be made in Delhi Development Authority is concerned, or similar statutory authorities, with reference to various types of layout was succinctly considered by the Court in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another, [ (2009) 15 SCC 769 ] and observing that the deduction towards the development ranges from 20% to 75% of the price of the plots, in paras 13 to 22, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "13. The percentage of "deduction for development" to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the layout in which the exemplar plots are situated. 14. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilized for developmental works and the second is the cost of the development works. For example, if a residential layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory authority, it may utilize around 40% of the land area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities (community facilities), etc. 15. The development authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of leveling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. The two factors taken together would be the "deduction for development" and can account for as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot. 16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorized private residential layout, the percentage of "deduction for development" may be far less. This is because in an unauthorized layout, usually no land will be set apart or parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. This is because in an unauthorized layout, usually no land will be set apart or parks, playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The roads and drains will also be narrower, just adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount spent on development work would also be comparatively less and minimal. Thus the deduction on account of the two factors in respect of plots in unauthorized layouts, would be only about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in regard to DDA plots. 17. The "deduction for development" with reference to prices of plots in authorized private residential layouts may range between 50% to 65% depending upon the standards and quality of the layout. 18. The position with reference to industrial layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will be large (say of the size of one or two acres or more as contrasted with the size of residential plots measuring 100 sq. m to 200 sq. m), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of an industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to 75% for residential plots. 19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then the deduction for development may be as much less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The percentages mentioned above are tentative standards and subject to proof to the contrary.) 20. Therefore the deduction for the "development factor" to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure. 21. It is also well known that the development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher overheads and expenditure. 21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout-whether it is residential, residential-cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and playgrounds provided. 22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory development authorities may have large areas earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants, water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains, parks playgrounds and community/civic amenities. The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to show that the "deduction for development" factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%." 17. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the deduction of 5% made by the learned Reference Court is not proper. The deduction ought to have been at least to the extent of 20%. Making deduction of 20% in the price of Rs. 742/-, market value becomes Rs. 593.60/- (rounded up to Rs. 594/-) per square metre. Hence, I fix the market value of the acquired land in all the above cases at Rs. 594/- per square metre. 18. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. Market value of the acquired lands in all the said cases is fixed at Rs. 594/- per square metre. The applicants shall be entitled to receive all the statutory benefits as also costs. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to that extent. 19. Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. In Favour of Assessee/Department.