JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Amonkar, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government/appellants, and Ms. Sulekha Kamat learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.3/State. Respondents no.1 and 2 though served are neither present nor represented. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 18.04.2015 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.35/2002 under the provisions of Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (said Act). 3. There is no dispute that the appellants i.e. the Government of India, Ministry of Defence by notification dated 16.03.1992 imposed restrictions under Section 7(b) of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the property of respondent nos.1 and 2 admeasuring 20,350 sq. mtrs. surveyed under No.126/1 at Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka (restricted property) for the creation of a safety zone near Naval Armament Depot. The Collector, by his award made under Section 12 of the said Act determined the market rate of the said land at Rs.28/- per sq. mtr. and further determined and valued the restrictions at 5% i.e. Rs.1.40 per sq. mtr. 4. The respondent nos.1 and 2 (claimants) aggrieved by the aforesaid determination by the Collector sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and upon such reference having made the matter was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.35/2002 before the Reference Court. 5. The Reference Court by its Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 rejected the reference. The claimants carried the matter before this Court by instituting First Appeal No.15/2007. By Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2014 this Court set aside the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 and remanded the matter to the Reference Court for fresh determination. The parties were permitted to produce additional evidence as was referred to in the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2014 by which the First Appeal No.15/2007 was disposed of. 6. On remand, the claimants re-examined AW1 Rajaram Sawant and also placed on record the certified copy of the award based on the Judgment dated 03.05.1995 and Order dated 15.01.2015 and the Award in Arbitration Reference No.1/1976 at Exh.15 Colly. The claimants also placed on record Judgment dated 03.05.1995 in Special Civil Suit No.33/1992 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco (Exh.16 Colly), Judgment dated 15.04.1996 in First Appeal No.13/1996 (Exh.17), Award dated 16.03.2001 (Exh.18) and certificate dated 06.08.2014 along with an inflation index in the year 2014-15 (Exh.19 Colly). The claimants also placed on record Judgment dated 03.05.1995 in Special Civil Suit No.33/1992 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco (Exh.16 Colly), Judgment dated 15.04.1996 in First Appeal No.13/1996 (Exh.17), Award dated 16.03.2001 (Exh.18) and certificate dated 06.08.2014 along with an inflation index in the year 2014-15 (Exh.19 Colly). The claimants also examined Mrs. Orty F. Mendonsa E Soares (AW2) and Mr. Shansundar Raoji Warkhandkar (AW3). 7. The appellants also examined Mr. Ramesh Kumar, General manager of the Naval Armament Depot (Goa) before remand. After remand, the appellants did not examine any witnesses or produced any documents. 8. The Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 18.04.2015 has now determined the market rate of the restricted land as Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. and has assessed the restrictions at 10% of such market rate i.e. Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. Hence this appeal by the appellants. 9. Mr. Amonkar learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government submits that there was no legal evidence on record to enhance the market rate from Rs.28/- per sq.mtr. to Rs.200 per sq. mtr. He submits that sale instances had been produced on record and based on them the market rate could not have exceeded Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. as was correctly determined by the Collector. He, therefore, submits that the determination of the market rate of Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. warrants interference. 10. Mr. Amonkar, without prejudice to the aforesaid, submits that in any case the restrictions could not have been assessed at 10% in place of 5% as was correctly assessed by the Collector in this case. He pointed out that the restricted land continues to be in the ownership of the claimants but only some restrictions as contemplated by Section 7(b) of the said Act have been imposed. Despite such restrictions, the claimants are entitled to make use of the restricted land for agriculture, orchard, etc. He, therefore, submits that the Reference Court was not right in enhancing the value of such restrictions from 5% to 10%. 11. Though there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, the Cross-Objections filed on behalf of the respondents are on record and the same are now considered as submissions on behalf of the claimants. 12. The Cross-Objections are not quite clear on the issue of determination of the market rate at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. 11. Though there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, the Cross-Objections filed on behalf of the respondents are on record and the same are now considered as submissions on behalf of the claimants. 12. The Cross-Objections are not quite clear on the issue of determination of the market rate at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. From the perusal of the Cross-Objections, it does appear that the claimants have no serious dispute with the determination of the market rate of the restricted land at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. However, the claimants object to the restrictions being assessed at only 10% of such market value. The claimants appear to contend that the restrictions should be assessed at 100% and based thereon compensation at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. should be awarded to the claimants. 13. The aforesaid is quite clear from grounds I, II, and III which read as follows : “I. The learned Reference Court, has fixed the market value of the land based on material before it and could not have deducted any amount as factually the plot of the Cross Objectors is totally blocked and inaccessible. II. The findings of the learned Reference Court are contrary and perverse to the material on record and it is not understood as to the Court has arrived at the percentage of 10% for restrictions when factually there is total taking over of the property. III. Before the learned Reference Court, an earlier award of the year 1972 in reference to the same land was placed wherein the government had already paid these Cross Objector's predecessor at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. mts and as such considering that as the base which was paid in the year 1972 there was no question of deducting any amount for the value to be fixed after 21 years.” 14. The claimants/cross-objectors have contended that the appellants have built a compound wall enclosing the restricted land as a result of which the claimants have no access to the restricted land and consequently are unable to use the same even for agricultural purposes. This is what is contended in grounds IV, V, and VI which read as follows : “IV. The claimants/cross-objectors have contended that the appellants have built a compound wall enclosing the restricted land as a result of which the claimants have no access to the restricted land and consequently are unable to use the same even for agricultural purposes. This is what is contended in grounds IV, V, and VI which read as follows : “IV. The learned Reference Court has also failed to appreciate that the Cross Objectors’ have placed sufficient material on record that the said area is inaccessible on account of the hindrances caused by the Respondent No. 2 as infact they have built a compound wall and closed the only existing access. V. On account of the physical restrictions imposed by Respondent No. 2, the Cross Objectors herein are unable to use the said property for any purpose and are not in a position to use the same for even agricultural use as there is no access. VI. The learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the restrictions imposed by the Respondent no. 2 are in such a manner that it has deprived the Cross Objectors of even accessing their property as such the Cross Objectors are unable to use the same for any purpose and as such there could not have been any deductions and the award had to passed without any deduction, alongwith all other statutory benefits and had to be in addition to what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.” 15. Thus, in short, the cross-objectors claim that the restrictions should be valued at 100% of the market rate and compensation at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. be awarded to the claimants/ cross-objectors. 16. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 17. In pursuance of the remand, as noted earlier, the claimants have produced substantial additional evidence to determine the market rate of the restricted land. In particular, the claimants have produced an award in respect of the acquisition of a portion of a larger property of which the restricted land forms a part. This acquisition took place in the year 1972 and the Collector had determined the compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court had however enhanced this compensation by determining the rate at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. 18. There is no dispute on this aspect because this rate as determined for the year 1972 was not appealed by either party. This acquisition took place in the year 1972 and the Collector had determined the compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court had however enhanced this compensation by determining the rate at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. 18. There is no dispute on this aspect because this rate as determined for the year 1972 was not appealed by either party. Thus, it is safe to proceed on the basis that the market rate of the restricted land which is only adjoining the acquired land would have been at least Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. in the year 1972. There is nothing in the evidence of Ramesh Kumar to reject this premise. In fact, the Appellants did not even bother to lead evidence after remand on this crucial aspect. 19. The Reference Court has taken the escalation at 10% per annum and based thereon arrived at the market rate of Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. Now though evidence has been produced by the claimants inter alia on the aspect of escalation, the evidence, at least in the present case is not sufficient to depart from the normal rate of 10% escalation per annum in such matters. Therefore, the Reference Court cannot be faulted in this matter in its determination of the market rate of the said land at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. Besides, as noted earlier, in the cross-objections, there is no challenge to this determination. The challenge is only by the appellants herein to the valuation of the restriction imposed. 20. The determination of the market rate at Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. in the aforesaid circumstances can be held as just and proper. This rate is supported by the evidence on record including in particular the earlier acquisition and the rate determined for the earlier acquisition which has attained finality. 21. The next issue which arises for determination is whether the restrictions imposed should have been valued at 5% as contended by the appellants or the same should be 100% as contended by the claimants. There is no merit in the contention of the claimants that these restrictions should be valued at 100%. Admittedly, the claimants continue to be the owners of the restricted land. There is no bar whatsoever to the claimants using the said land for permissible purposes without breaching the restrictions imposed in terms of Section 7(b) of the said Act. There is no merit in the contention of the claimants that these restrictions should be valued at 100%. Admittedly, the claimants continue to be the owners of the restricted land. There is no bar whatsoever to the claimants using the said land for permissible purposes without breaching the restrictions imposed in terms of Section 7(b) of the said Act. In such a situation, therefore, there is no question of restrictions being valued at 100%. 22. Though there is evidence about compound walls being erected, there is no evidence that access of the claimants to the restricted land has been completely blocked. Mr. Amonkar learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the access is not blocked though, it may be regulated by gates through which such access is always granted. Therefore based on such alleged blockage of access, the claimants cannot claim to have the restrictions assessed or valued at 100% of the market rate. 23. At the same time, there is some merit in the contention of the claimants/cross objectors that even the valuation of the restrictions at 10% is not adequate. The evidence on record establishes that restrictions have been imposed under Section 7(b) of the said Act which inter alia provides that no building, wall, bank, or other construction of permanent materials above the ground shall be maintained otherwise than with the written approval of the General Officer commanding the District and on such conditions as he may prescribe, and no such building, wall, bank or other construction shall be erected. There is evidence on record about the constructions and development in the Chicalim area where the restricted land is situated and where no such restrictions have been imposed. 24. AW1, even before remand had deposed that the restricted land falls in settlement zone and therefore, the restricted land, but for the restrictions imposed had the potentiality of being developed and used for construction of residential units. There is evidence about civic amenities in Chicalim and the fact that the airport, railway station, and KTC bus stand are within a radius of about 5 km from the restricted land. Having regard to all this material the restrictions could not have been valued at only 10% but were required to be valued at least 20%. To that extent the impugned award warrants interference. 25. Having regard to all this material the restrictions could not have been valued at only 10% but were required to be valued at least 20%. To that extent the impugned award warrants interference. 25. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed but the cross-objections have to be partly allowed and the restrictions have to be valued at 20% instead of 10%. This means that the compensation will have to be paid at Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. instead of Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. Besides, the claimants/cross-objectors will be entitled to statutory benefits as provided under Section 23(2) of the said Act on this enhanced rate now determined. 26. The appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of by making the following order : (a) First Appeal No.67 of 2015 is hereby dismissed; (b) Cross-Objections No.6 of 2015 in First Appeal No.67 of 2015 are partly allowed and the claimants/cross-objectors are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. mtr. instead of Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. as determined by the Reference Court in the impugned award. (c) On the aforesaid compensation amount, the claimants/cross-objectors are held entitled to a further sum of 15% in terms of Section 23(2) of the said Act; (d) The appellants will have to now deposit in this enhanced Court compensation within two months from today together with interest at the prescribed rate. If no rate is prescribed in the said Act then the deposit will have to be made with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of imposition of restrictions till the date of payment. (e) If any deposits or payments have already been made by the Appellants, they will be entitled to make proportionate adjustments. (f) Upon deposit, the Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amounts by properly identifying themselves and providing bank details. Similarly, the Claimants are also permitted to withdraw the deposited amounts, if any together with the interest, if any that may have accrued thereon. (g) The impugned award is modified in the above terms. (h) There shall be no order for costs.