JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant State, and Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the respondents. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30.06.2012 made by the District Court (Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No.6 of 2009 enhancing the compensation in respect of acquired land from Rs.150/-per square meter to Rs.500/- per square meter. 3. In this case, the respondents' land admeasuring 810sq.mts from Survey No.25/3 of Village Renovadi, Merces was acquired for construction of Ribandar bye-pass from Kms 143.500 to 153.200 on NH-4A. The Land Acquisition Officer, by Award dated 16.02.2008 determined the market rate at Rs.150/-per square meter, and the Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.06.2012 has enhanced this rate to Rs.500/- per square meter. 4. Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the acquired land was admittedly affected by the provisions of the Goa Land Use Act, 1991, since, the claimant had purchased the same under the provisions of Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. She submits that the acquired land, therefore, had no building potential and could not have been used for any purpose other than agriculture. She submits that this factual aspect has been not taken into consideration by the Reference Court. She further submits that the Reference Court has gone by the Gazette Notification dated 19.06.2003 which determines the prevailing market value for purpose of payment of stamp duty. She submits that such Notification was quite irrelevant in the context of determination of market value in land acquisition cases. She relied on The U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr., v/s. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1996 SCC 1170 in support of this contention. She also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakur Kuldeep Singh v/s. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 1272 5. Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent-claimant defends the impugned Judgment and Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that Valuation Reports were submitted in this matter. He points out that though the land may be agricultural, it is close to the capital city as also NH-17. Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the respondent-claimant defends the impugned Judgment and Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that Valuation Reports were submitted in this matter. He points out that though the land may be agricultural, it is close to the capital city as also NH-17. He points out that there was an issue of severance in this case and on account of the acquisition, the rights of the respondents to utilize the un-acquired portion of their land were also severely affected. He, therefore, submits that the compensation determined by the Reference Court is fair and proper and the same may not be interfered with. 6. Rival contentions now fall for my determination. 7. In this case there is no dispute that the acquired land was not only agricultural land, but further was initially vested and thereafter purchased by the respondent-claimant under the provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. The Goa Land Use Act 1991 provides that any land which is vested in a tenant cannot be utilized by such tenant for purposes other than agriculture. This will apply also to the vested lands once they are purchased by the tenants under the provision of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. Therefore, Ms. Linhares is quite right in her submissions that the compensation will have to be determined based on its agricultural potential and without adverting to any building or development potential. 8. The Reference Court has referred to Exhibit-16 which is an Award in respect of comparable and nearby lands in which compensation in the year 1994 was already determined. Such determination was on the basis that even such lands were agricultural properties. The Reference Court has thereafter accepted the formula of 10% escalation per annum and based thereon determined the market rate at Rs.234/-per square meter on the date of issuance of Section 4 Notification. 9. The Reference Court was quite justified in this approach to base its determination on Exhibit-16 and thereafter making some allowances for yearly escalation in the valuation of the land. However, thereafter, the Reference Court at paragraph 25 of the impugned Judgment and Award has proceeded to make the addition of Rs.270/-per square meter by reasoning thus : “25. 9. The Reference Court was quite justified in this approach to base its determination on Exhibit-16 and thereafter making some allowances for yearly escalation in the valuation of the land. However, thereafter, the Reference Court at paragraph 25 of the impugned Judgment and Award has proceeded to make the addition of Rs.270/-per square meter by reasoning thus : “25. Further, by taking into consideration the facts such as the yield of the acquired land and its productivity, as stated in detail by AW3 and the proximity of the acquired land to the capital city and also to NH-17, the rate of compensation arrived at by AW3 on the basis of loss in production due to acquisition plus the loss in production due to severance, also needs to be taken into consideration, which comes to around Rs.270/- per sq. meter. Thereafter, by taking into consideration the testimony of AW2 and the rates published by the Government in the Official Gazetted Series I No.2 dated 19.06.2003, which are not disputed by the respondent, the rate comes to Rs.500/- per sq.meter, specifically the date of publication of notification in this case being 5.9.2003. Hence, it is held that the applicant has succeeded in proving his claim only to the extent of Rs.500/- per sq.mt. in respect of the acquired land. It is therefore, to that effect the issue is determined partly in the affirmative.” 10. Now, according to me, there is a serious error in the reasoning reflected in the aforesaid paragraph 25 of the impugned Judgment and Award. In the first place, the Tribunal, relying on The U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr., v/s. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1996 SCC 1170 and Thakur Kuldeep Singh v/s. Union of India had already accepted the proposition that the gazette notification for determining stamp duty is not quite relevant for determining the market value for acquired land in land acquisition cases. after accepting this position, in paragraph 25, the Reference Court has once again adverted to the official gazette dated 19.06.2003 for determining the market rate at Rs. 500/- per square meter in respect of the acquired land. 11. Secondly, the Reference Court, has simply held that this addition is necessary having regard to the proximity of the acquired land to the capital city, severance, and yield. 500/- per square meter in respect of the acquired land. 11. Secondly, the Reference Court, has simply held that this addition is necessary having regard to the proximity of the acquired land to the capital city, severance, and yield. Assuming that these factors are correct there is no discussion as to why the increase should be to the extent of Rs.270/-per square meter when based on Exhibit-16 the rate would come to Rs.234/-per square meter. 12. According to me, even if the factors like increased yield, severance, or the proximity to the capital city are cumulatively taken into account, the market rate cannot exceed Rs.325/-per square meter. This means that the addition to the basic rate of Rs.234/-per square meter will have to be commensurate to the overall market rate of Rs.325/-per square meter. 13. Some enhancement is necessary on account of the aforesaid factors because any agricultural property close to the city limits will inherently have its added advantages. The travel time, as well as transport facilities for transportation of agricultural yield, will be much lesser as compared to agricultural properties which are at some distance from the city limits. Again, in this case, there is some issue of severance involved because the acquisition was of 810 sq.mts and the entire property of the respondent was about 5000 sq.mts. On account of the acquisition and the consequent bypass, the entire property has been affected to some extent. Therefore, some increase is necessary on this account as well. 14. Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid circumstances, this is a matter where the market value will have to be determined at Rs.325/-and not Rs.500/- per square meter. There is no case made out to interfere with the statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court. 15. This appeal is, therefore partly allowed. The compensation amount is reduced from Rs.500/-to Rs.325/-per square meter. The statutory benefits granted by the Reference Court proportionate to the rate now determined are not disturbed. 16. The appellant has deposited the award amount in this Court. The appellant and the legal representatives of the respondent will now be entitled to make proportionate withdrawals consistent with the rate now determined in this judgment and order. The appellant and the legal representatives of the respondent will also be entitled to the proportionate interest that may have accrued on this deposited amount. The appellant and the legal representatives of the respondent will now be entitled to make proportionate withdrawals consistent with the rate now determined in this judgment and order. The appellant and the legal representatives of the respondent will also be entitled to the proportionate interest that may have accrued on this deposited amount. Registry to facilitate the withdrawals once the parties submit their calculations. 17. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any order for costs.