The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of market value of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, considering factors such as sale instances, development potential, and traditional access.

The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 27th October, 2003, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no. 498/1995, whereby a reference filed by the Appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was answered in the negative.

2. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'), bearing no.22/176/91-RD dated 30.09.1991, published in the Official Gazette dated 27.02.1992, the land of the Appellants admeasuring an area of 140 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 7/1, was acquired for the construction and black topping of main Betalbatim road via Bagdem, Padriguelem, Village Panchayat of Colva. By an Award dated 27.01.1995, passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said Award, the Appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per square metre besides compensation for the coconut trees of Rs.3000/-. The Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 27th October, 2003, dismissed the reference filed by the Appellants.

3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.

4. Shri S.S. Kakodkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected himself in rejecting the reference filed by the Appellants as there was material on record to establish that the market value of land as on the date of Section 4 Notification was at the minimum rate of Rs.100/- per square metre. He further submitted that the Appellants have produced three Sale Deeds which are located in the vicinity of the acquired land wherein the price mentioned therein was ranging from Rs.100/- to Rs.250/- per square metre, which itself demonstrates that the price offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He further submitted that the Reference Court has rejected the Sale Deeds produced by the Appellants on extraneous grounds essentially on the ground that there was already a traditional access way through the property of the Appellants which disentitle the Appellants from claiming compensation for the land acquired. He further submitted that the Reference Court has erroneously held that the construction of such road would benefit the land of the Appellants when this aspect is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the market value of land as on the date of Section 4 Notification. He further submitted that the Reference Court has totally misinterpreted the evidence on record and erroneously dismissed the reference filed by the Appellants.

5. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned Judgment. He submitted that the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation. He submitted that as per the case advanced by the Appellants themselves, they claimed that there was a four metre access touching their property which itself would disclose existence of such access in the property of the Appellant which would disentitle the Appellants from claiming any compensation on account of such encumbrances in the acquired land. He further submitted that the Sale Deeds produced by the Appellants are not comparable with the acquired land and, as such, the Reference Court was justified in not relying upon the said transactions. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has further submitted that there is no case made out by the Appellants for interference in the impugned Judgment.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following p