By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to award dated 30-82002 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No.88/1996 partly allowing the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short).

2. Vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Official Gazette dated 27-7-1992, land admeasuring 1350 sq. mtrs. of the respondent was acquired for construction of water course of S.I.P. in Navelim village of Sa1cete Taluka.

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate ofRs.4.50 per sq.mtr. Being dissatisfied, the applicant sought reference and claimed Rs.600/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of 125/- per sq.mtr. with statutory benefits under the Act.

3. In Land Acquisition Case No.88/1996, the respondent examined Vrinda Shirodkar, power of attorney holder of the respondent as AW.1 and produced the power of attorney at Exh.Aw.1/ A, Certificate of the Communidade of Margao at Exh.Aw.1/B, Form I & XIV at Exh.Aw.1/C, survey plan at AW.1/ D. award in Land Acquisition Case No.80/1988 at Aw.1/E, AW.1/Filomena Fernandes and Aw.3/Constancio Menezes, Agricultural Valuer who produced his report at Exh.A w.3/ A. The appellants examined one witness. Satish Kudchadkar as R w .1.

4. The Reference Court placed reliance upon the award at Exh.Aw.1/E in Land Acquisition Case No.88/1988 which was in respect of a paddy field of one Sadanand Borkar which was acquired vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act published in the Official Gazette dated 12-9-1985. By the said Notification, the land, that is, the paddy field of Sadanand Borkar was acquired. The Reference Court by Judgment and award dated 29-1-1992 had enhanced the compensation to Rs.75/- per sq.mtr. in respect of the said land: The Reference Court held that the said award was in respect of comparable land since the acquired land was also a paddy field and thereafter by increasing the price by 10% every year arrived at the figure ofRs.128/- per sq.mtr.

5. Mr. Rivonkar, learned Government Advocate submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the acquired land was tenanted agricultural land and as such 0n the date of Section 4 Notification had no building potential. In support of this submission, Mr. Rivonkar placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 92-2005 in First Appeal No.221 of 2003 in Smt. Janaki N. Morajkar Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Office and anr. (since reported in 2005(3) ALL MR 824). According to Mr. Rivonkar in view of the ratio laid down in Janaki Mon1jkar's case (supra) by Division Bench of this Court that tenanded agricultural land cannot be valued on the basis of building potential in view of Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 which had come into force w.e.f. 2-11-1990 the acquired land could not have been valued on the basis of building potential and therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside. According to Mr. Rivonkar, in Land Acquisition Case No.801 1988 the Reference Court enhanced the compensation in respect of the paddy field belonging to Sadanand Borkar on the basis of building potential and as such, the said award could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court for fixing the market rate of the acquired land in the present case. In any event, Mr. Rivonkar submitted that the Reference Court could not have granted 10% rise every year, more particularly having regard to the fact that the land was agricultural and was tenanted. According to Mr. Rivonkar, the Reference Court ought to have rejected the reference in as much as the respondent had not led any cogent evidence to establish that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rivonkar submitted that the respondent herself claimed compensation on the basis of agricultural income by examining value