BHIKANTH SHANU NAIK GAONKAR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND CHIEF ENGINEER, KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification dated 27th June, 1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, an area of 5350 sq. metres of land comprised in survey Nos. 43/1 and 43/2 of Nagorcem, Palolem Village belonging to the appellant was acquired for the purpose of respondent No. 2-Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that several adjoining and neighbouring lands were also acquired under the same notification as the notification under which the appellant's land was acquired. In particular, lands of adjoining owners/neighbours viz., Mangala G. Naik & others, Shashikala C. Dessai, Rajendra Apa Gaocar, Rama Subray Vernekar, Amar Shaba Dessai, Dinesh Yesso Dessai and another, Shaba Yeso Dessai, Vishnu P. Fal Dessai, Ganaba Y. Dessai & ors., and Smt. Kashibai B. Dessai & others, were also acquired under the same notification and under the same award. They had also made applications to the Reference Court for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Against the decisions of the Reference Court in those matters, First Appeals No. 5/2000, 12/2000, 62/2000, 142/2000, 143/2000, 148/2000, 149/2000, 152/2000, 154/2000 and 158/2000 were filed by the acquiring body. All these appeals were heard and decided by this Court by a common Judgment dated 1st April, 2005. By the said Judgment, this Court was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. metre for the acquired lands. The Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant's land is similar to the lands which formed subject-matter of aforementioned first appeals and, therefore, nothing survives in the appeal.

(2.) Mr. Afonso, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is true that in the aforesaid appeals this Court has fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. metre. He further admits that the appellant's land was also acquired under the same notification and his land was situated in the vicinity of the lands subject-matter of those appeals.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.