A. P. LAVANDE, J.

( 1 ) BY this appeal the appellant takes exception to Judgment and award dated 15th May, 2003 passed by the iiird Additional District Judge, Margao in land Acquisition Case No. 321/95 rejecting the reference sought by the applicant is respect of the land acquired by Konkan Railway corporation.

( 2 ) BY Notification dated 13-3-91 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition act which was published on 16-5-91 an area of 2594 sq. metres bearing Chalta No. 4/6 of p. T. Sheet No. 271 belonging to the comunidade of Aquem was acquired. The applicant is the tenant of the Comunidade in respect of the said land. The Land Acquisition officer made his Award, awarding 6. 75 per sq. m. in respect of the acquired land. An amount of Rs. 6. 35 per sq. m. was paid to the applicant being tenant of the land and 0. 40 per sq. m. was paid to the Comunidade for the said land. Being aggrieved by the Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicant herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. m. In the Reference Court the applicant examined two witnesses, Pundalik Morajkar as AW 1 and antule Morajkar as AW2. The applicant produced two sale deeds and one Award. Out of the said two sale deeds, one was in respect of developed plot and the other one was in respect of the agricultural land. The Award on which reliance was placed was in respect of agricultural land, situated at a walking distance of about 5 minutes, which was acquired by Notification dated 12-9-85. In that award, the Reference Court awarded Rs. 100/- per sq. m. and in the high Court the parties settled the matter and by consent the amount was reduced to Rs. 75/- per sq. m. The respondents herein did not lead any evidence. After considering the evidence and the submissions made by the parties, the Reference court by the impugned Judgment and Award, rejected the reference holding that there was no case made out for enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquired land.

( 3 ) MR. Kakodkar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Reference Court ought to have considered the potentiality of the land although the property was tenanted agricultural land. He further submitted that having regard to the fact that in respect of the land situated at a walking distance of 5 minutes for a similar land, the compensation of Rs. 75/- was awarded by the High Court and therefore the compensation ought to have been enhanced in respect of the acquired land. The learned counsel further submitted that potentiality of the land has to be considered while determining the compensation for the acquired land and the Court has to also consider if there is any adjoining development in order to find out the exact compensation payable to the person whose land is acquired. The learned counsel further submitted that future potentiality of the land has to be also considered while fixing the compensation. It is also submitted that in case of dissimilarity, the Court has to fix the compensation depending upon the dissimilarity of the land acquired and of the land which is the subject matter of the sale deed or the Award. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments of the apex Court :- chimanlal Hargovind das Vs. Special land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr. (AIR 1988 SC 1652); Adusumilli gopalkrishna Vs. Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (AIR 1980 SC 1870); hasanali Walimchand (dead) by L. Rs. Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1998 SC 700); the Collector, Raigarh Vs. Dr. Harisingh thakur and Anr. (AIR 1979 SC 472); State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh (AIR 2001 SC 2532) and Shahji Kuriakose and Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors. (2001 (4) ALL MR 874 ).

( 4 ) MR. Kakodkar further submitted that in the Award made by the Land acquisition Officer it is mentioned that it was submitted on behalf of Konkan Railway corporation th