Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30.12.2006 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 67/2001 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as “the said Act”) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 15.01.1992 land admeasuring 4675 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 7 (part) and an area of 650 square metres from the property surveyed under no.8 (part) was acquired for the left bank main canal of Tillari Irrigation Project in the village of Assonora in Bardez Taluka. 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.9/-per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.75/- per square metre from the property surveyed under No.7(part) and Rs.70/-per square metre from the property surveyed under no.8(part). The Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2006 partly allowed the reference and fixed the compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.20/-per square metre. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the Reference Court has relied upon a sale deed at Exhibit 11 which is not at all comparable to the land acquired. The learned counsel further pointed out that the land acquired was sloppy and hilly whereas the land in the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court was of a developed plot suitable for the construction purpose. The learned counsel further submitted that as the land acquired was not comparable with the said sale instance, the Reference Court was not justified to rely upon the said sale instance to fix the compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel further submitted that as the land acquired was not comparable with the said sale instance, the Reference Court was not justified to rely upon the said sale instance to fix the compensation for the land acquired. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment has come to the conclusion that the land acquired was sloppy and hilly and further noted that AW2 who was the purchaser of the sale instance plot at Exhibit 11 has not brought any material on record that he has made expenditure on account of levelling the sale deed plot. The learned counsel thereafter has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record and pointed out that the sale instance plot is at a distance of 3 Kms from the acquired land and as such relying upon such sale instance is not at all justified. The learned counsel further pointed out that the land acquired was located in a remote village and as such the question of considering the market value on the assumption that such land had development potentiality is not at all justified. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the material on record and pointed out that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden to establish that the amount offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is not adequate. The learned counsel as such submits that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. The learned counsel has pointed out that there is enough material on record to establish that the land acquired had potentiality of being used for non agricultural purpose. The learned counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the land acquired was adjoining the main road proceeding from Assonora to Pirna and as such the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the land acquired was not accessible is not justified. The learned counsel further pointed out that village of Assonora is adjoining to Mapusa city and as such the land acquired had high potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose. The learned counsel further pointed out that village of Assonora is adjoining to Mapusa city and as such the land acquired had high potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose. The learned counsel further pointed out that the sale instance at Exhibit 11 was executed in the year 1987 and the notification in the present case was issued in the year 1992 and as such the Reference Court ought to have given an escalation of a minimum of 10% per year to determine the market value of the land acquired. The learned counsel further pointed out that considering that the said escalation has not been granted and taking note of the fact that the respondent has not filed any cross objection, the question of any interference in the impugned judgment does not arise. The learned counsel further pointed out that the price fixed by the Reference Court is just, reasonable and no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 6. 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.20/- per square metre? 7. On perusal of the documentary evidence on record as well as the oral evidence of AW1 and AW2, it cannot be disputed that the land acquired was located at a distance of 2 kms from the sale instance plot at Exhibit 11. The Reference Court upon appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the sale instance at Exhibit 11 is comparable to the land acquired. The findings arrived at by the Reference Court on the basis of appreciating the evidence on record is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, on going through the evidence of AW1 and AW2 I find that AW1 had in fact stated that the land acquired is situated at a distance of ½ km from the sale instance plot. AW2 has also stated that the plot which he has purchased pursuant to the said sale deed at Exhibit 11 is hilly and sloppy area. Even accepting the contention of Mr. AW2 has also stated that the plot which he has purchased pursuant to the said sale deed at Exhibit 11 is hilly and sloppy area. Even accepting the contention of Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants that even the land acquired was sloppy and hilly area, I find that the findings of the Reference Court that the land acquired is comparable to the sale instance at Exhibit 11 is justified. Apart from that, the contention of Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate to the effect that further deduction ought to have been given to the land acquired which is sloppy and hilly area cannot be accepted. Considering that AW2 who is the purchaser of the sale instance plot at Exhibit 11 has stated that even he has purchased a sloppy and hilly area which required expenditure to bring it at uniform level, the question of giving any further deduction on that count does not arise. The Reference Court on the basis of the evidence on record and taking note of the fact of the sale instance at Exhibit 11 is a developed area has effected a deduction of 50% on account of the development charges and other dissimilarities to fix the compensation which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent otherwise is justified to contend that the Reference Court ought to have given an escalation to fix the compensation for the land acquired for the period from Section 4 Notification and the date of the sale instance at Exhibit 11. But however, the respondent has not filed any cross objection and accepted the value in the impugned judgment and as such the question of examining that aspect in the context of the present appeal would not arise. 9. Be that as it may, considering that the amount of compensation fixed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre is just, reasonable and appropriate in the facts of the present case, I find that there is no case made out by the appellants for any interference in the impugned judgment. The Reference Court has rightly fixed the compensation for the land acquired and as such no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed with costs.