JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.01.2007 whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") came to be partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.105/- per square metre. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently challenged the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has gone on the wrong premise that the Land Acquisition Officer has offered compensation of Rs.61.41 per square metre when on the contrary the amount offered was Rs.40/- per square metre. The learned counsel further pointed out that the said error of the Reference Court is reflected while fixing the compensation for the land acquired at para 17 of the impugned judgment and as such according to him, the learned Judge has erroneously fixed the compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel further pointed out that the sale deed at Exhibit 14 is not at all comparable to the land acquired as it was a post notification sale deed and was pertaining to an area of only 3750 square metres. The learned counsel further pointed out that in the present case the area of the land acquired was 12500 square metres in respect of the property surveyed under no.100/3 and an area of 2500 square metres from the property surveyed under No.87/1 at Assagao Village. The learned counsel further pointed out that on account of disparity of the area between the acquired land and the sale instance land, the Reference Court ought to have made deduction while fixing the compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously found that the acquired land had an access but on the contrary the evidence suggest otherwise. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record and pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to follow the principle as established under Section 23 of the said Act while fixing the compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record and pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to follow the principle as established under Section 23 of the said Act while fixing the compensation for the land acquired. Another contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that the land acquired being Communidade land which had no potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose which cannot be accepted in view of the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal Nos.186 of 2005 and 197 of 2005 in the case of Communidade of Cortalim Vs The Executive Engineer and Anr. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has pointed out that as far as the portion of the property admeasuring 2500 square metres is concerned, as such land was tenanted land the appellants have not filed any appeal challenging the compensation of the land in the said portion of the award. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2011) 10 SCC 371 in the case of Goa Housing Board Vs Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar and another, with regard to the tenanted land there is no bar for the Court to fix the compensation for the land acquired on the basis of the plot having potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose after giving suitable deduction. The learned counsel further pointed out that on account of such dissimilarity, the Apex Court has given deduction of 50% and as such according to him, the respondent would otherwise be entitled for enhancement of the compensation even in respect of the said portion of the property. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has further pointed out that as far as the property surveyed under no.100/3 is concerned, the area involved is 12500 square metres whereas the sale instance produced by the respondent at Exhibit 14 is in respect of the property having an area of 3750 square metres. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has further pointed out that as far as the property surveyed under no.100/3 is concerned, the area involved is 12500 square metres whereas the sale instance produced by the respondent at Exhibit 14 is in respect of the property having an area of 3750 square metres. The learned counsel further pointed out, considering that the sale instance plot was also admeasuring nearly 4000 square metres, it is very much comparable to the land acquired as both the properties would require similar expenditure on account of development. The learned counsel further pointed out that merely because there is a gap of 3½ months between Section 4 notification and the sale instance, the Reference Court has proceeded to effect a deduction of 40% which is totally exorbitant. The learned counsel further submitted that the sale instance at Exhibit 14 is comparable to the land acquired and as such no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel further pointed out that as the land acquired is comparable to the land subject matter of Exhibit 14, there is no reason for interference in the impugned judgment. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.105/- per square metre. 6. On perusal of the records, I find that the land was acquired pursuant to the notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 29.04.2003 whereby an area of 2500 square metres from the property surveyed under No.87/1 and an area of 12500 square metres from the property surveyed under No.103/3 situated at Assagao village were acquired for the purpose of a play ground. The Land Acquisition Officer had offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.40/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.200/- per square metre. The Reference Court upon hearing the parties and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and award fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.105/- per square metre. 7. The Reference Court upon hearing the parties and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and award fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.105/- per square metre. 7. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that there is a mistake in calculating the amount of compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award under Section 11 of the said Act, appears to be well founded. No doubt, the amount offered was Rs.40/- per square metre and not Rs.61.41 per square metre as recorded by the learned Judge. But however, the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer as stated in the impugned judgment by no way influenced the learned Judge while calculating the compensation at the rate of Rs.105/- per square metre. Merely because the calculation at para 17 of the impugned judgment contradicts the figure actually offered by the Land Acquisition Officer by itself would not suggest that the Reference Court has erroneously fixed the compensation for the land acquired. The amount mentioned at para 17 of the impugned judgment is in fact a deduction of 40% effected by the Reference Court for fixing the compensation for the land acquired by taking note of the fact that there was a gap of 3½ months between Section 4 notification and the sale instance. In such circumstances, the contention of Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants on that count does not deserve any consideration. 8. With regard to the comparability of the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale instance, I find that it is not in dispute that the sale instance is in respect of the same village wherein the land came to be acquired. It is now well settled that when the comparable sale instance method is resorted for fixing the compensation for the land acquired, a sale instance from the same village having similar features is reliable piece of evidence for fixing such compensation. In the present case, the records reveal that the sale instance is in respect of the same village as the land acquired and having similar infrastructure facilities though the sale instance was a developed plot. In the present case, the records reveal that the sale instance is in respect of the same village as the land acquired and having similar infrastructure facilities though the sale instance was a developed plot. The Reference court has made a deduction of 40% on account of dissimilarity to fix such compensation and I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Reference Court in accepting the said sale instance for fixing the market value of the land acquired. As such, as pointed out herein above as the sale instance as well as the land acquired was located in Assagao Village and located very close to the acquired land which is stated to be 50 metres away, I find that the reliance upon the sale instance at Exhibit 14 by the Reference Court cannot be faulted. Apparently, the land in the sale deed is adjoining to the land acquired and as such the reliance on such sale instance when the genuineness has not been disputed by the respondent is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. On perusal of the sale instance as pointed out herein above, the area involved therein is 3750 square metres. Considering the largeness of the acquired land and taking note of the fact that the Reference Court has effected a deduction of nearly 40% merely because there is a gap of 3½ months between the sale instance and Section 4 notification, I find that no further deduction on that count as pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate deserves to be made in the present appeal. Apart from that, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the acquired land had no potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose is also without any merits as the land acquired was substantially a flat land and suitable for non agricultural purpose. Besides that, there is material on record to show that the land acquired as well as the sale instance are similarly accessible and as such the Reference Court has not made any error while fixing the compensation for the land acquired on the basis of the sale instance at Exhibit 14. The contention of the learned counsel to the effect that the Reference Court was not justified to give enhancement of Rs.7.50 per square metre on account of accessibility of the land also cannot be accepted. The contention of the learned counsel to the effect that the Reference Court was not justified to give enhancement of Rs.7.50 per square metre on account of accessibility of the land also cannot be accepted. Considering that the deduction of 40% has already been effected, any deduction which could have been made on the basis of the allegation made by the learned Additional Government Advocate are set off by deduction of 40% which is otherwise on a higher side. In such circumstances, considering that the compensation fixed by the Reference Court under Section 23 of the said Act is just, fair and appropriate, I find that there is no case for any interference in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the above appeal which stands accordingly rejected.