R. C. CHAVAN, J. :- The Communidade of Sancoale takes exception to the award by the Third Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 129/1990 whereby the learned Judge enhanced compensation for Communidade lands acquired by the State from Rs. 3/- to Rs. 5.40 per sq.mtr. against the claim of Rs. 75/- per sq.mtr.

2. By Notification dated 17-4-1984 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act an area of 1,89,800 sq.mtrs. of land belonging to the appellant in Sancoale village was sought to be acquired for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. This land was situated in Survey No. 89. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq.mtr. relying on an instance of sale of 29,847 sq.mtrs. of land bearing Survey No. 39/1 in village Dabolim which was sold on 24-2-1982. The Land Acquisition Officer refused to rely on the instances of sale of other lands, particularly one dated 6-8-1982, Survey No. 1/1 admeasuring 3555.50 sq.mtrs., sold at the rate ofRs. 4.50 per sq.mtr.

3. Being aggrieved by the award, the Communidade sought a reference to be made to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act The claimant claims for compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq.mtr. on the basis of various sale instances, as also an award in Land Acquisition Case No. 58/1987 wherein the District Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq.mtr. for 13,500 sq.mtrs. of land out of survey No.1 09 of village Sancoale.

4. The learned District Judge considered various sale instances and rejected them as they pertained to small pieces of developed land which could not compare well with vast track of rocky land which was subject-matter of the acquisition. The learned District Judge also refused to rely on the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 58/1987 on the ground that the land which was subjectmatter of the said award was first, only 13,500 sq.mtrs. i.e. less than one tenth of the land which is the subject-matter of this appeal, and also since the said land was proposed to be reserved for light industrial purpose. He relied on a instance of sale dated 4-5-1982 (6-8-1982 ?) whereby 3555.50 sq.mtrs. of land had been sold at the rate of Rs. 4.50 per sq.mtr. The observations of the learned Judge in paragraph 41 of the judgment are not clear. However, it is not necessary to go into that aspect The learned Judge then added 10% per annum on the value at Rs. 4.50 per sq.mtr. since the instance was two years prior to the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act and arrived at rate of Rs. 5.40 per sq.mtr. and proceeded to make an award accordingly.

5. We have heard Shri Fernandes, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Rivobkar, learned Government Advocate for the responderr s/State. As regards rejection of various sale instances in respect of smaller pieces of land by the learned District Judge, no grievance could be made, since these instances do not afford any scale for comparison of price of the acquired land. Even as regards the land under the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 58/1987, the learned Government Advocate submitted that this did not afford an instance of sale which could be called comparable, as explained by the District Judge in paragraphs 17 and 18 of his judgment The learned Government pleader submitted that since the land of the appellant is a Communidade land, it could not be compared to a freehold land and therefore, could not fetch a price which freehold land could get. Relying on judgment of this Court of Communidade of Candolim, represented by its Attorney vs. Deputy Collector (North), Panaji, Goa reported in 2005(1) Goa L.R. 25, the learned Government Advocate submitted that in view of the restrictions on sale of Communidade land referred to paragraph 9 of the said Judgment, such land could not be compared with sale instances in respect of freehold land.

6. There can be no doubt about the proposition that Communidade land could no