JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. G. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. Shivan Desai, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.9 to 13. 2. The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 16/11/2005 passed in Land acquisition Case No.30/1991 whereby a reference preferred by the respondents under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.306/- per square metre. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that: Pursuant to the Notification dated 18/2/1982 under Section 4 of the said Act, land belonging to the respondents was acquired admeasuring an area of 20210 sq.metres from property surveyed under nos. 132/3, 132/4, 135/1 and 141/2 situated at Miramar, Panaji City for the purpose of parks, recreation and development of the area. After complying with the formalities under the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under section 11 of the said Act and offered compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondents preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation for the acquired land initially, in the sum of Rs.750/- per sq.metre and thereafter, the claim came to be reduced to Rs.550/-per sq.metre. The Reference Court after hearing the parties and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and award, fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.306/- per sq.metre. 4. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Shri D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently assailed the Judgment of the Reference Court and pointed out that the Reference Court has fixed the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of a sale instance (Exhibit 25) dated 25/8/87 which was much after the Section 4 Notification. The learned Counsel points out that the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition was admeasuring more than 20,210 sq.metres while the sale instance at Exhibit 25, was in respect of a developed plot having an area of 575 sq.metre only. The learned Counsel points out that the land which was subject matter of the present acquisition was admeasuring more than 20,210 sq.metres while the sale instance at Exhibit 25, was in respect of a developed plot having an area of 575 sq.metre only. The learned Counsel further points out that though there is a reference in the said sale instance to an agreement dated 15/1/1982, such agreement has not been produced and as such, the Reference Court was not justified to rely upon such agreements to fix the compensation for the acquired land. The learned Counsel points out that the land acquired was not accessible by any public road, as against, the sale instance which was adjacent to the main road. The learned Counsel further points out that the said agreement dated 15/1/1982 was also not a registered agreement and as such, the Reference Court was not justified to rely upon such agreement to fix the compensation of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further points out that besides the sale instance the respondents have also produced sale deed dated 31/6/1976, wherein a plot of land admeasuring 595 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq.metre and even assuming an appreciation of 10% was given, such amount will not be more than Rs.200/- per sq.metre. The learned Counsel further points out that besides the said document/sale instance, the respondents have also produced a sale deed dated 18/6/1982 which is at (Exhibit 27), wherein land admeasuring 2248 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq.metre, which according to him, would be more approximate to the land acquired. The learned Counsel thereafter has taken us through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has failed to make any deduction on account of the dissimilarities pointed out by the appellants, essentially to the fact that the land acquired was not accessible and that the sale instance was of developed plot, as against the land acquired, which was an undeveloped land. The learned Counsel further points out that it is well settled that for larger tracks of land the rate of development charges to be deducted range from 25% to 75%. The learned Counsel further points out that considering the the land acquired was undeveloped and not accessible, a deduction of 50% would be justified. The learned Counsel further points out that it is well settled that for larger tracks of land the rate of development charges to be deducted range from 25% to 75%. The learned Counsel further points out that considering the the land acquired was undeveloped and not accessible, a deduction of 50% would be justified. The learned Counsel thereafter has taken us through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has misconstrued the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act to fix the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.306/-per sq.metre. The learned Counsel further points out that the land as on the date of publication of Section 4 Notification did not have any potentiality and, as such, the Reference Court has erroneously fixed the rate of the land acquired at Rs.306/- per sq.metre. 6. On the other hand, Shri Shivan Desai and Shri G. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have joined issues with the contentions raised by Shri Lawande, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. The learned Counsel points out that the land acquired was located in the prime locality in the city of Panaji adjoining the Miramar beach at a distance of about 50 metres from Miramar circle and, as such, such land had high potential of being used for non agricultural use. The learned Counsel points out that the sale deed at Exhibit 25 which was at a distance of about 400 metres from the acquired land and take note that there is a reference to an agreement of 1982 in the said sale deed, the Reference Court was justified to rely upon the price mentioned therein as the basis to fix the compensation for the acquired land. The learned Counsel have further pointed out that considering the location and the potentially of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land, in fact, the respondents are entitled for a much higher compensation than the amount fixed by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel further points out that even assuming the sale deed at Exhibit 27 is taken in consideration, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court would be just and appropriate. The learned Counsel further points out that even assuming the sale deed at Exhibit 27 is taken in consideration, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court would be just and appropriate. The Learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the evidence on record as well as the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has in fact granted much higher deduction whilst fixing the compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.306/- per sq.metre and as such, no interference is called for. The learned Counsel in support of his submissions has relied on two Judgments of the division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (2) BomCR 204 in the case of “Executive Engineer(C), Maharashtra State Electricity Board EHV Civil Construction Division Vs. Uttamrao and 2012 (5) ALLMR 233 in the case of “Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., a Public Limited Company Vs. Shri Gustavo Renato Da Cruz Pinto”. The Learned Counsels as such submits that the appeal be dismissed. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: Whether the Reference Court was justified to fix the rate for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.306/- per sq.metre? 8. On perusal of the evidence on record as well as the material produced by the appellants, we find that there were two sale instances produced on record which are comparable to the land acquired. One of the sale deeds is at Exhibit 25 and the other sale deed is at Exhibit 27. The evidence on record suggests that as far Exhibit 25 is concerned, the plot which was the subject matter of the said sale deed was at a distance of about 400 metres from the acquired land. As far as the sale deed at Exhibit 27 is concerned, the evidence suggests that the said sale instance plot is about 1400 metres away from the acquired land. Considering the proximity of the sale instances with the land acquired, we find that the said two sale instances can form the foundation for fixing the compensation of the land acquired. The sale deed at Exhibit 25 clearly suggests that the sellers in the sale deed were the original owners of the property, who had obtained the subdivision of their land way back in the year 1979. The sale deed at Exhibit 25 clearly suggests that the sellers in the sale deed were the original owners of the property, who had obtained the subdivision of their land way back in the year 1979. The recitals also point out that there was an agreement for sale to sell the concerned plot to a developer which was executed on or about 15/1/1982. The statements therein also suggest that the Town and Planning Authorities had given the permission to sell the plot somewhere in the year 1981 and ultimately, the sale deed was executed by the sellers in favour of the purchasers therein being the nominees appointed by the developers in the year 1987. The said sale deed was produced through AW.1 and it was also referred to by AW.2, who is an Expert Valuer. AW.1., no doubt in the cross examination has pointed out that they have not gone through agreement dated 15/1/1982, but, however, though there is a suggestion to one of the witnesses disputing the existence of the agreement. nevertheless, there is nothing in the cross examination which would suggest that the veracity of the recitals in the sale instances produced by the respondents were disputed by the appellants. Apart from that considering the recitals refereed to above, we find no reason to disbelieve the statements as recorded in the sale instance. The appellants also failed to produce any evidence on record to rebut the authenticity and the genuineness of the sale deeds and as such, it is not open now for the appellants to dispute the contents therein. 9. The Division bench of this Court where one of us (F.M. Reis, J was a party) in case of Executive Engineer (C), Maharashtra State Electricity Board EHV Civil Construction Divn. (supra) has observed in paras 20 and 21 thus: “20. As such the judgments relied upon by the Acquiring Body are not applicable in the peculiar facts of the present case, as the land acquired in the present case is not an agricultural land and no sale-deeds of large tracks of land are available to determine the market value of the land acquired and it is an admitted fact that non-agricultural land is valued on per sq.ft. or per sq.metre basis. or per sq.metre basis. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court referred to herein above, there is no bar on relying upon the sale-deeds of small developed plots for the purpose of determining the compensation of a large track of land, provided that suitable deductions are made for the purpose of development and other charges, which would be required for such development. 21. The learned Counsel for the Acquiring Body submitted that the sale deed at exh.43 cannot be relied upon, as according to him, the same has been prepared only to inflate the market value, as the claimant was very well aware about the intended acquisition of his property. The claimant (PW.1) in his evidence has stated that they had obtained the permission for non-agricultural use of the land in the year 1988 and thereafter he had taken steps for the purpose of developing the said property. He has further stated that he had sold one plot of land having an area of about 4900 sq.ft. to one Pankaj Shivaji Mohite on 23rd February, 1994 for a sum of Rs.1,03,831/-. On perusal of the said sale-deed, we find that the same was executed pursuant to an agreement, which was entered 22nd into on October, 1993, much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In fact, the Land Acquisition Officer in his deposition has stated that he received the proposal for acquisition only on 4th December, 1993, which discloses that the agreement was entered into much before the land was intended to be acquired. In the cross-examination of the claimant, neither the genuineness of the said sale-deed has at all been disputed, nor has the Acquiring Body disputed the receipt of the consideration by the claimant, as also the execution of the sale-deed, nor the location of the said land. The Acquiring Body has only restricted itself in putting suggestions in the cross-examination and it has failed to derive any admission on the basis of these suggestions. As such, considering that the said sale 23rd deed dated February, 1994 is preceded by an Agreement for Sale, which was executed in October, 1993, the genuineness of the said sale-deed cannot be doubted in view of the evidence on record.” 10. As such, considering that the said sale 23rd deed dated February, 1994 is preceded by an Agreement for Sale, which was executed in October, 1993, the genuineness of the said sale-deed cannot be doubted in view of the evidence on record.” 10. Considering the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court, we find that when the recitals to the sale deed clearly disclose the existence of an agreement which is much prior to Section 4 notification, there is no reason to disbelieve the existence of such agreement when the veracity of the recitals have been established. The Court is always entitled to rely upon such agreement as the basis to fix the compensation for the acquired land. 11. In the present case, on the basis of the sale deed a developed plot of land having an area of 575 sq.metres was sold at the rate of Rs.567/- per sq.metre. Considering that the amount fixed by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment is Rs.306/- per sq.metre, we find that the deduction affected by the Reference Court on account of development and dissimilarities of the land acquired with the sale instance work out to 40%. In such circumstances, we find that all the dissimilarities referred to by Shri Lawande, the learned Government Advocate for the appellants even assuming they accepted, have been taken care of by the Reference Court. 12. Apart from that, on perusal of sale deed at Exhibit 27, we find that price therein is about Rs.400/- per sq.metre in respect of a property which was admeasuring 2248 sq.metres. The land which was the subject matter of the sale deed was an undeveloped land. Considering that the price of undeveloped land in the year 1982 was Rs.400/- per sq.metre and the only dissimilarity between the land acquired and the land which was the subject matter of the said sale deed is to the largeness of the land, the amount fixed by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.306/- per sq.metre would be after deduction of nearly 25%. Considering the said aspect, we find that the amount of compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.306/- per sq.metre is just, fair and reasonable. 13. While disposing of First Appeal No. 137 of 2007 with Cross Objection No. 4 of 2008 in the case of Dy. Collector (L.A.) & Anr. V/s Mr. Considering the said aspect, we find that the amount of compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.306/- per sq.metre is just, fair and reasonable. 13. While disposing of First Appeal No. 137 of 2007 with Cross Objection No. 4 of 2008 in the case of Dy. Collector (L.A.) & Anr. V/s Mr. Manuel Fernandes & Anr., by judgment dated 29.08.2012, this Court took a view that the claimant was entitled for the same compensation as that fixed by the High Court in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the same notification. The judgment passed by this Court was assailed before the Apex Court by filing a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 38779-38780 of 2013. By a recent order dated 10.12.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “Even on merits, we are also convinced that the petitioner's challenge to the impugned judgment is thoroughly misconceived and the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the High Court has awarded enhanced compensation in respect of other parcels of land acquired by the same very notification and the judgment in that case has not been challenged by the petitioner. The impugned order does not show that another judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for contending that the High Court had not granted enhancement for similar parcels of land was produced before the learned Single Judge who decided Appeal No.137 of 2007. In view of the above, we do not find any valid ground or justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed as barred by time and also on merits. For filing a frivolous petition against the determination of compensation by the High Court, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs.50,000/-. The amount of cost shall be paid to the respondents within a period of two months along with the enhanced compensation determined by the High Court. Copies of this order be sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the address mentioned in the memo of special leave petitions.” 14. The amount of cost shall be paid to the respondents within a period of two months along with the enhanced compensation determined by the High Court. Copies of this order be sent to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the address mentioned in the memo of special leave petitions.” 14. The Division Bench of this Court wherein one of us (F.M. Reis, J) was a party in First Appeal No. 95 of 2007 by judgment dated 12.08.2010 while disposing of an appeal preferred by the appellants challenging an award fixing the compensation for the land acquired therein in respect of the same notification at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre dismissed such appeal along with the cross objection filed by the claimants therein. On perusal of the said judgment, we find that the land acquired was pursuant to the same notification as is the subject matter of the present appeal and the said Judgment has become final. But however, the land in the present case apparently appears to be adjoining an internal road referred to herein above. Though both the lands are accessible by a road but it appears that the land in the present case was closer to Panaji city and had better facilities. In such circumstances, the compensation fixed by the Reference Court by the impugned judgment cannot be said to be unjust or exorbitant. 15. The contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that the acquired land was not accessible to the road cannot be accepted. On perusal of the evidence of AW.1, there is a specific statement therein that the land acquired was accessible by an internal road going to Miramar and Namoxim. Considering the said statement, we find that the contention of Shri Lawande that the land was not accessible by a motor- able road cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no case made out by the appellants for interference with the impugned Judgment. The compensation fixed by the Reference Court is just, fair and reasonable. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no case made out by the appellants for interference with the impugned Judgment. The compensation fixed by the Reference Court is just, fair and reasonable. 16. For the reasons stated herein above and considering that the Division Bench of this Court in respect of the land which was acquired pursuant to the same notification has found no fault in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre, we find that the compensation fixed by the reference Court at the rate of Rs.306/- per square metre in the present case does not call for any interference. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 17. In view of the above, the appeal is rejected with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.