JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of the Award passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Fast Track Court-3, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No.19/2006 in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The relevant facts are: The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 7/4/2003 for acquisition of various lands including the land which is the subject matter of the present appeal. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.metre. The appellant being dissatisfied had filed reference and claimed that he is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.305/- per sq.metre. The Reference Court considered the matter and rejected the claim of the appellant mainly on the ground that the acquired land is within the set back area of the State Highway and unfit for construction. In view of this, the Reference Court did not consider the sale instances in respect of the properties which according to the appellant were adjacent to the acquired land. 3. Heard Shri V. R. Parsekar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents. I have examined the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the appellant can be denied the claim of compensation as made on the ground that the acquired land is within the set back area of the State Highway and not fit for construction? (ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation? 4. Shri Parsekar, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence brought on the record by the appellant and by not considering the sale deeds produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the reasons given by the Reference Court for rejecting the claim as made by the appellant is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the enhanced compensation could not have been rejected only on the ground that the acquired land is within the setback area of the State Highway and is not fit for construction. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment in the case of "State of Goa and Another Vs. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment in the case of "State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others" (2009) 10 SCC 686 and more specifically paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6, which read thus: “3. The petitioner alleges that the acquired land measuring 2715 sq. meters, was a narrow strip which fell within the 40 meters margin from the centre of the highway where constructions were prohibited. It is contended that as the acquired land could not be used for construction, the land had to be considered as not having any development potential; and that therefore it could not be compared with the land (which was the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995) for which compensation had been determined having regard to its potential for development. It was also contended that being a narrow strip it was also not of much use even for agriculture purposes. 4. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be treated as a land without value or without any potential for development, merely on the ground that the law relating to Highways prohibited construction on either side of the Highway, upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the Highway. All that was required to create or realize potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its rear. In that event, the strip of land will become the `access' to the rear-side land from the main road and will also become the frontage of the aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for its own use. 5. The contention that a land adjoining the Highway should be treated as having no development potential (and therefore as land without much value except as ordinary agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to extend beyond the 40 meters margin) as having potential for development, is illogical and cannot be accepted. 6. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example of a residential plot of land measuring 60' X 100'. 6. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example of a residential plot of land measuring 60' X 100'. Let us assume that the Municipal Bye-laws require a front (road side) set-back of 20' for construction of houses in a plot of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty feet wide front strip in the said plot free of any construction while putting up the construction in the plot. Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front strip. Let us further assume that the front strip is acquired for road widening. Can the acquiring authority deny compensation to that strip on the ground that the said 20' strip acquired for road widening could not in any event be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not of any value? Obviously not.” 5. Shri Vahidulla, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Reference Court has rejected the claim for enhanced compensation as made by the appellant as at that time the land within the setback area was considered to be unfit for construction and as per the principles which were considered at the relevant time, the enhanced compensation was not being paid to the claimants on that ground. He has submitted that the law as laid down in the judgment in the case of “ State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others” being a subsequent judgment, it cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed an error in rejecting the claim as made by the appellant. He has submitted that in any case, the sale deeds relied upon on behalf of the appellant does not show that the sale instances are in respect of the lands which are comparable with the acquired land and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for enhanced compensation, as claimed by him. 6. The appellant has produced the copy of the sale deed dated 10/8/2000 (Exhibit 20) in respect of land forming a part of land of survey no.132/5 of village Bordem. This sale deed shows that the land was sold at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.metre. The appellant has produced the copy of the sale deed dated 11/8/2000 (Exhibit 21), by which a part of land of survey no.135/5 of village Bordem was sold at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.metre. This sale deed shows that the land was sold at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.metre. The appellant has produced the copy of the sale deed dated 11/8/2000 (Exhibit 21), by which a part of land of survey no.135/5 of village Bordem was sold at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.metre. The appellant has produced copy of the sale deed dated 8/5/2004, by which land at village Bordem was sold at Rs. 233.19 per sq.metre. The appellant has examined two witnesses who have stated that the acquired land is in good location and is accessible to public road and public electricity and water supply. It is undisputed that at the time of acquisition of the land, the appellant was running service station in the other portion of the land. The appellant has produced the copy of the challan on record (Exhibit 12), to show that portion of the property is converted for industrial purposes. In my view, the appellant has produced sufficient material on the record to show the potential of the acquired land. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "State of Goa and Another Vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and Others" supra, the conclusions of the Reference Court that the acquired land is situated in the setback area of the State highway and is therefore unfit for construction cannot be maintained. I hold that the appellant is entitled for the enhanced compensation. 7. The acquired land is situated at village Bordem. The 03 sale deeds relied by the appellant are in respect of the lands situated at Bordem. The appellant has produced sufficient material on the record to show that the acquired land had non-agricultural potential. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh and ors." reported in (2010) 11 SCC 581 has held that the appreciation in case of lands having non-agricultural potential should be 10-12% per annum. Applying this principle and considering the sale deed dated 10/8/2000 (Exhibit 20) and sale deed dated 11/8/2000 (Exhibit 21), the amount of compensation for which the appellant is entitled comes to about Rs.200/- per sq.metre. Therefore, the award passed by the Reference Court has to be set aside. 8. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Applying this principle and considering the sale deed dated 10/8/2000 (Exhibit 20) and sale deed dated 11/8/2000 (Exhibit 21), the amount of compensation for which the appellant is entitled comes to about Rs.200/- per sq.metre. Therefore, the award passed by the Reference Court has to be set aside. 8. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. (a) the appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.200/-per sq.metre for the acquired land along with other statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition officer had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.30/-per sq.metre. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled for additional amount of Rs.170/- per sq.metre along with statutory benefits. (b) The appellant is entitled to the proportional costs throughout.