The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of similarity between the acquired land and the land sold in sale deeds, and the applicability of proximate sale deeds in determining the market rate of acquired lands.

A. P. LAVANDE, J.

( 1 ) BY this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 13-5-2003, passed by the Addl. District Judge, mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No. 138/98 partly allowing the reference.

( 2 ) AN area admeasuring 14,200 sq. metres bearing Survey No. 97/2 situated on the boarder of Tivim Village of Bardez Taluka was acquired by the government for construction of Left Bank Main Canal of Tillari Irrigation project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act) was published on 13-10-1995. The Land acquisition Officer made the Award on 30-9-1997, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. metre in respect of the land. The respondents herein sought reference under section 18 of the Act, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court decided the reference partly allowing it and enhancing the market rate in respect of the acquired land from rs. 20/- to Rs. 110/- per sq. metre. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Advocate for the respondent. The only point which arises for determination in the present appeal is, whether the reference Court was justified in fixing the market rate of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 110/- per sq. metre and, if not, what is the market rate in respect of the acquired land.

( 4 ) THE respondent herein examined three witnesses, namely Vassudeo kamat, the attorney of the respondent AW 1, Anand Kulkarni, Approved Valuer aw 2, and Pandurang Patil AW 3. The appellants herein examined two witnesses namely Shri V. S. Honwen RW 1, Asst. Engineer in the Irrigation department and Shri Shrikant Dattatraya Patil RW 2 also an Assistant engineer in the Irrigation Department. The respondent relied upon two sale deeds, the first one being the Sale Deed dated 27-1-1992 in respect of a plot of land admeasuring 5350 sq. metres at a distance of about 2 kms. from the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. metre. The said deed mentions that the consideration has been paid in respect of the plot as well as the residential house existing therein. Another sale deed relied upon by the respondent is sale Deed dated 5-12-1995, which forms part of the plot which was sold by sale deed dated 27-1-1992. The consideration referred to in the sale deed works out to Rs. 337/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court relied upon the sale deed dated 5-12-1995 and after making some deductions arrived at the market rate of Rs. 110/- per sq. metre in respect of the acquired land.

( 5 ) MR. Rivonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the market rate fixed by the Reference Court is contrary to the settled principles governing the fixation of market rate, as laid down by the Apex Court. The learned Counsel has further submitted that no reliance could be placed on the sale deed dated 27-1-1992 since the sale deed was not only in respect of the plot, but was also a residential house existing therein and, therefore, it is not possible to find out what was the value of the land sold by the sale deed. In so far as sale deed dated 5-12-1995 is concerned, it is submitted that it is a small plot and, as such, cannot be compared with the acquired land which is situated in the interior, which had no direct motorable or other access. It is further submitted that the claimant has not established similarity between the acquired land and the land under the sale deed and on this count, no reliance could be placed on the said sale deed. The learned Counsel submitted that since the sale deed is post section 4 notification, the same cannot be relied upon. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the, following judgments : (1) (Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Poona and another), a. I. R. 1988 S. C. 1652. (2) (Union of India v. V. M. Sal