KRISHNANATH BABURAO NAIK Vs. DY COLLECTOR LAO PANAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 21st April, 2005, passed by the learned IIIrd Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case no. 17/1986, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, filed by the Appellant, came to be rejected.

(2.) By notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), bearing no. 22/118/80-RS dated 10th November, 1980, published in Official Gazette dated 20th November, 1980, the land of the Appellant came to be acquired for the Housing Scheme at Davorlim. An area of 22,308 square metres was acquired from the property surveyed under no. 11/0, which belonged to the Appellant. By an Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 25th January, 1983, under Section 11 of the said Act, the compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.6/- per square metre for the acquired land besides an amount of Rs.23,363/- for the trees therein. Being dissatisfied with the said compensation, the Appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and prayed for compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs.100/- per square metre. By the impugned Judgment and Award dated 21st April, 2005, the reference filed by the Appellant came to be rejected.

(3.) Shri Ramani, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the Reference Court has totally erred in rejecting the reference filed by the Appellant. He further submitted that the land of the Appellant is located in the outskirts of Margao City and, as such, had substantial potentialities for being used for non-agricultural purposes. He further submitted that the land of the Appellant is in the vicinity of the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition of the land of one Numene D' Souza, wherein the compensation was finally fixed at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre in an acquisition which had taken place much before the present acquisition. He further submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected himself in concluding that the Appellant had failed to establish his claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel further submitted that an application was filed for additional evidence under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, whereby the Appellant wanted to rely upon the Agreement of Sale dated 21st May, 1976, by which, the land acquired was agreed to be purchased from the original owners Domingo Jose Martinho Fernandes and his wife at the rate of Rs.5.50 per square metre. He further submitted that the Appellant had sought permission to use the said land for residential purpose and a conversion Sanad was granted by the Collector on 30th July, 1980, under the Land Revenue Code. He further submitted that the land acquired was purchased by two different Sale Deeds dated 31 st March, 1980 and 2nd February, 1981. He further submitted that as such, the Appellant desires to rely upon the said Agreement dated 21 st May, 1976 as well as the Sale Deeds dated 31st March, 1980 and 2nd February, 1981 in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation as the same are relevant for the disposal of the above Appeal. He further submitted that by an Order passed by this Court, the said application was to be considered at the time of the hearing of the Appeal. The learned Counsel has pointed out that even assuming that the land was purchased at the rate of Rs.5.50 per square metre in the year 1970, considering the escalation in the land valued at the rate of 15 percent per annum, the Appellant was entitled for much higher compensation for the land acquired considering that the conversion for non-agricultural purpose was already obtained much before the Section 4 Notification. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected himself in rejecting the reference filed by the Appellant.