The provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, are applicable to awards made by the Collector or Court after the 30th day of April, 1982, the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1982 in the House of the People, and before the commencement of the Amendment Act.

Dr. COUTO, J.:- This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the Award dated 27th Aug. 1984, made by the learned District Judge, Panaji, in a reference made to him under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.

2. By a Notification dated 19-11-1977, the Government notified that several pieces of land, situated at Bambolim and admeasuring, in all, 1,81,690 sq. mts., would be required for the purposes of 'Grenade Range'. Amongst the acquired plots, those bearing the Nos. 1 to 5 belonged to the respondents herein. The Land Acquisition Officer, in his Award, assessed the value of the said plots at the rate of Rs.3/-per sq. mt. and he further valued, separately, the cashew, mango and other trees standing on the plots.

3. Being aggrieved by the said compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents herein filed under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, a reference application praying that the matter be referred to the learned District Judge and a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq. mt. be paid to them. After reference was made, the learned District Judge, Panjim, by his Award dated 27th Aug. 1984, partly allowed the reference, and accordingly, enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer from Rs. 3/- to Rs. 5/- per sq. mt. It is against this Award that the present appeal was filed by the Union of India, on the ground that there was no reason for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

4. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Government Advocate, has indeed argued that the learned District Judge has erred in enhancing the compensation. He invited our attention to the impugned Award and after taking us through it, submitted that the only ground on which the learned Judge based his Award for enhancing the compensation was that somewhere in 1973, an acquisition of part of the same land has been done and the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. mt. Then, the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that if, in the years 1972-73, part of the same property had been acquired at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. mt, it was patent that the value of the same land, as well as of the adjoining one, would have been enhanced in the year 1984. He did not, according to the learned counsel, consider even two sale deeds in respect of two plots of land situated at 'Morambim - O - Pequeno' which had been sold in the year 1977 for Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 15.000/-. The learned counsel then submitted that as it is apparent from the Award made in the year 1973, the Land Acquisition Officer, while awarding a compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. mt., had taken into consideration the likelihood and the prospects of development of the land for construction purposes in view of the expansion of the cities and the industries, as well as that, after acquisition of the land was made in the several proceedings pending, there would be no more land available at Bambollm. The learned counsel further invited our attention to the circumstances that the Land Acquisition Officer has also observed that had this aspect been ignored, the compensation would have been much less because the income derived by the parties, according to themselves, was almost negligible and in the circumstances, a compensation even at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. mt. would have been adequate and appropriate. Then, the learned counsel submitted that those considerations were no more available in favour of the respondents, because, admittedly, the plots acquired in the present case were situated far away from the road and had no access to it. In addition, the same plots were land-locked in military areas and had no potentialities at all as a building construction site.

5. We are afraid that the above submissions of Mr. Nadkarni are not well founded. Admittedly, part of the same land belonging to the respondents had been acquired by the Government in the year 1973 and, at that relevant time, th