COMUNIDADE OF BAMBOLIM Vs. MANGUESH BETU KANKONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the order dated 5th January, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn. at Panaji in Execution Application No. 46/89/a. This revision raises an important question as to whether the suit, at the instance of a person, who claims entitlement to compensation awarded or to a part thereof; in acquisition proceedings, to which he was not a party, is maintainable. The facts are not in dispute. However, in order to appreciate the relevant question, the facts in nutshell are as under :---

(2.) THE Government of Goa, Daman and Diu on deciding to widen the Panaji/bambolim/siridao-Agacaim road, being National Highway 17-A, called upon the Deputy Collector, Goa North Division, Panaji, to draw acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" for the sake of brevity ). In the said acquisition proceedings, the present respondent received no notice under the relevant provisions of the Act, of the Land Acquisition proceedings, bearing No. LAO 386. Every interested person is required to make a statement regarding the interest of any other person in the land sought to be acquired. However, it appears that, inspite of the Land Acquisition Officer having called upon the petitioner to furnish information of the interested persons, interested in the land sought to be acquired, the petitioner did not state interest of the respondent in the land and failed to furnish all the required information and suppressed the subsisting tenancy rights of the respondents and his interest in the land sought to be acquired.

(3.) THE Deputy Collector, Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji, acting as Land Acquisition Officer, made an Award on 24-3-1981 under the provisions of section 11 of the Act; wherein part of the property Odlem Ran, having cashew garden, belonging to the petitioner, of which the respondent was a tenant was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,14,468. 68, and paid the said amount of compensation to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not disclose the interest of the respondent, he was unaware of the acquisition proceedings, with the result the entire amount of compensation was received by the petitioner and nothing was paid to the respondent although he was entitled to receive 50% of the compensation being legal tenant of the land.