JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Prashil Arolkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants, and Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel for the Respondent–claimant. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29th April 2017 made by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.25/2014 enhancing the compensation for the acquired land from Rs.130/- per square metre to Rs.1590/- per square metre. 3. The State by notification dated 02.12.2010 initiated acquisition for the public purpose of constructing “missing link widening of traffic congestion location in Margao city”. The Respondent's land to the following extent was proposed for acquisition. Sr. No. Chalta No. P.T. Sheet No. of Margao City Area acquired 1 Chalta No.81, P.T. Sheet No.274 135 sq.mts. 2 Chalta No.139, P. T. Sheet No.280 4 sq. mts. 3 Chalta No.45/4, P. T. Sheet No.281 4005 sq. mts. Total 4144 sq. mts. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 18.01.2013 determined the compensation at Rs.130 per square metre. The Respondent (Comunidade) applied for reference and now the reference Court, by impugned judgment and award dated 29.04.2017 has enhanced to Rs.1590/-together with all statutory benefits provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the said Act). Hence, this appeal by the State. 5. Mr. Arolkar learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the reference Court erred in accepting the agreement for sale cum development dated 07.11.2007 as the sole basis for determining the market rate. He submits that this was only an agreement and could not have been relied upon. He submits that the agreement was regarding a fully developed area having structures in it. He submits that the consideration was also to be paid partly in cash and partly by real estate. He submits that the property that forms such an agreement's subject matter can never be held as comparable to the acquired property. He submitted that such property could never have been compared with the property bearing Chalta No.45/4 admeasuring 4005 square metres that was tenanted paddy field. 6. Mr. Arolkar without prejudice to those mentioned above submitted that no proper deductions were made for the tenancy factor after considering the provisions of the Goa Land Use Act, 1991 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Housing Board Vs Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar and another, (2011) 10 SCC 371 . 6. Mr. Arolkar without prejudice to those mentioned above submitted that no proper deductions were made for the tenancy factor after considering the provisions of the Goa Land Use Act, 1991 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goa Housing Board Vs Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar and another, (2011) 10 SCC 371 . He also relied on Albert Fernandes Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Goa, IDC and another, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1675 to support this contention. He submits that no deductions have been made because the acquired land was not freehold land but land owned by the Comunidade subject to several restrictions regarding alienation. He relied on the Goa Housing Board and another Vs Attorney of Communidade of Mapusa, 2008 (2) Mh. L.J. 151 to support this proposition. 7. Based on the aforesaid, Mr. Arolkar submitted that the impugned award warrants interference. In any case, the rate determined in the impugned award is liable to be scaled down substantially. 8. Mr. Menezes, learned counsel for the Comunidade defends the impugned award based on its reasoning. First, he submits that the duly registered agreement fairly represents the amount that the willing purchaser had agreed to pay to the willing seller. He submitted that there is no evidence of structures like a house or building and reference to the structures in the schedule could very well include the small structures here and there. Third, he submits that from the tenor of the agreement, it is quite clear that it is the property that was agreed to be sold for development purposes. Finally, he submitted that the Comunidades are entitled to alienate their properties after seeking permissions and therefore, they are not in that sense, not freehold properties as contended. 9. Mr. Menezes submitted that the predicates for the applicability of the Goa Land Use Act were not made out in this case unlike in the case of Rameshchandra Pawaskar(supra) or Albert Fernandes(supra). First, he pointed out that the acquired lands were in Margao town/city about which there can be no dispute. He pointed out that the acquired lands had the benefits of urban amenities that were deposed to by the Respondent's attorney and the expert valuer. Finally, he pointed out that there was even no cross-examination on this aspect. 10. Mr. First, he pointed out that the acquired lands were in Margao town/city about which there can be no dispute. He pointed out that the acquired lands had the benefits of urban amenities that were deposed to by the Respondent's attorney and the expert valuer. Finally, he pointed out that there was even no cross-examination on this aspect. 10. Mr. Menezes also pointed out that the reference Court has already made deductions to the extent of 70% from the base price determined from the agreement. He pointed out the deduction of 10% because this was a case of acquisition for road widening was unjustified regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Goa and another Vs Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others, (2009) 10 SCC 686 . Without prejudice, he submits that even if some slight deductions may be necessary for the factors urged by the State, such deductions should be set off against the incorrect deductions made by the reference Court simply because the acquisition, in this case, was for road widening. Mr. Menezes submitted that this appeal may be dismissed for all the reasons above. 11. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 12. The reference Court, in this case, has almost entirely gone by the registered agreement for sale cum development dated 07.11.2007 in respect of the property admeasuring 7866 square metres at a distance of approximately 300 metres away from the acquired land. The schedule of this agreement clearly states that various structures existed in the said property. The agreement clarifies that the property was a developed one and was agreed to be sold for further real estate development. Even the consideration was payable partly in cash and partly by real estate. There is no evidence about, whether this agreement for sale ultimately fructified into a sale deed. There is also no evidence about the payments made whether by way of cash or real estate in the future. 13. In contrast, out of the total area of 4144 square metres of the acquired property, the area of 4005 square metres bearing Chalta No.45/4 was a tenanted paddy field. Only the balance area of 139 square metres bearing Chalta Nos.81 and 139 was untenanted bharad land. Therefore, there are admissions on this aspect. Furthermore, there is documentary evidence corroborating this position. Only the balance area of 139 square metres bearing Chalta Nos.81 and 139 was untenanted bharad land. Therefore, there are admissions on this aspect. Furthermore, there is documentary evidence corroborating this position. Therefore, once there is admitted or proved tenancy, there are no further predicates for the applicability of the Goa Land Use Act that remain to be fullfilled. Therefore, by operation of law, the said enactment applies. This means that almost the entire acquired property was a tenanted paddy field. Ordinarily, therefore, the contention of Mr. Arolkar that the acquired property could not be compared with the property forming the subject matter of the agreement for sale cum development dated 07.11.2007 would have to be accepted. 14. However, in this case, it will not be proper to hold that the agreement is entirely irrelevant or that it could not have even been looked into to determine the market price of the acquired property. There is no serious dispute that the acquired property was about 300 metres away from the agreement property. There is also no dispute that the acquired property is in Margao town/city itself, the same as the agreement property. The evidence about the acquired property having the benefit of several urban amenity facilities was not even challenged in the cross-examination of both Comunidade's attorney and the expert valuer. The agreement at least prima facie indicates that some willing purchaser had offered the rate of 3981.18 i.e. Rs. approximately 4000/- per square metre for purchase and the Rs. agreement property including the structures therein. Undoubtedly, several deductions will have to be made, but this is not a case where the agreement can be rejected outright as completely irrelevant. The Court however will have to be a little cautious. Still, in the peculiar facts of the present case, it would not be appropriate to reject it in its entirety or as something totally irrelevant. 15. Based upon an agreement and the deposition of the valuer (AW2), the reference Court has taken the base rate as Rs.5300/-per square metre as on the date of Section 4 notification. For this purpose, the reference Court accepted the agreement rate at approximately Rs.4000/-per square metre. After that, considered an enhancement of 10% because the agreement was of the year 2007 and Section 4 notification was issued on 02.12.2010. 16. For this purpose, the reference Court accepted the agreement rate at approximately Rs.4000/-per square metre. After that, considered an enhancement of 10% because the agreement was of the year 2007 and Section 4 notification was issued on 02.12.2010. 16. Before arriving at such a base rate, the reference Court should have appreciated the differences between the agreement property and acquired property. The agreement property as noted earlier was a developed property with structures in it that was agreed to be sold for real estate purposes. In contrast, the acquired property, or in any case, most of the acquired property i.e. 4005 square metres from out of 4144 square metres was a tenanted paddy field. This significant difference should not have been overlooked by treating the base price as Rs.5300/-. In Rameshchandra Pawaskar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered in great detail the provisions of the Goa Land Use Act and its impact on determining the market rate under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court has held that where the land is affected by tenancy and consequently, the Goa Land Use Act, at least a 50% deduction will have to be made upfront if there is any issue of comparing such disputed lands with untenanted lands. 17. The determination of the base price of Rs.5300/-by the reference Court, in this case, appears to be quite excessive. The reference Court should have considered that the agreement property was a fully developed property with structures. Furthermore, the agreement property had no serious impediments to the real estate development project. Based on all these factors, the base rate could have been taken at a maximum of Rs.4000/-per square metre and not Rs.5300/-per square metre. Therefore, applying the law laid down in Rameshchandra Pawaskar(supra), a 50% deduction is warranted at the outset, bringing the rate to Rs.2000/-per square metre. Thus, the rate of Rs.2000/-per square metre can be said to be the rate of the undeveloped but untenanted property. 18. Further deductions are in order because the acquired property was undeveloped and not entirely freehold. In addition, there are statutory restrictions for transfer of Communidade properties that naturally peg the rates. This aspect is discussed in the Attorney of Communidade of Mapusa (supra). 18. Further deductions are in order because the acquired property was undeveloped and not entirely freehold. In addition, there are statutory restrictions for transfer of Communidade properties that naturally peg the rates. This aspect is discussed in the Attorney of Communidade of Mapusa (supra). But no deductions would be necessary because this was an acquisition for road widening purposes regarding the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others (supra). Considering all these factors, a further deduction of about 60% to 70% would be appropriate from the base rate of Rs.2000/-per square metre. This would bring the rate approximately to Rs.1400/- per square metre. 19. The rate of Rs.1400/-per square metre could be an appropriate rate considering the evidence on the record as also the law laid down by the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. Moreover, this rate will represent the market rate, particularly because there is no dispute that the acquired properties were in Margao town/city and had the benefit of several urban amenities. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is partly allowed and the market rate is determined at Rs.1400/- per square metre in place of Rs.1590/-per square metre. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified only to this extent. 21. Mr. Arolkar pointed out that only one-third of the compensation amount and proportionate statutory benefits are payable to the Respondent -Comunidade in the impugned award. Mr. Menezes did not dispute this position. 22. Therefore, from out of the compensation amount deposited by the appellants in this Court, the Respondent – Comuninade is permitted to withdraw the compensation together with statutory benefits based on the redetermined rate of Rs.1400/-per square metre and not Rs.1590/-per square metre only to the extent of one-third. The State will be entitled to withdraw the balance compensation. Both the parties will be entitled to the proportionate interest on their respective shares. 23. The parties to file their calculations before the Registrar (Judicial) and exchange the same. Then, the Registrar (Judicial) will permit the withdrawals accordingly by remitting the amount in the bank accounts directly. 24. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent above. Accordingly, there shall be no order for costs.