COMMUNIDADE OF MAPUSA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Appeals were ordered to be heard together as a common issue arises. THESE three Appeals are preferred by the Claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). By the impugned Judgments and Awards, the references under Section 18 of the said Act have been dismissed.

(2.) IN First Appeal Nos. 310 of 2006 and 216 of 2006, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken us through the award under Section 11 of the said Act as well as the reference application made under Section 18 of the said Act. He pointed out that in the award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that there were tenants in the acquired land and, therefore, 50% of the compensation amount has been awarded to the tenants. He pointed out that the claim of tenancy was disputed by the Appellant in both the Appeals. He submitted that the issue of tenancy arose before the Reference Court which could have been decided only by the Mamlatdar in view of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1964). He invited our attention to the Section 7 of the said Act of 1964 and a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madhumati Atchut Parab V/s Rajaram V. Parab & Others {(2009) 4 SCC 183 }. On instructions, he stated that the Appellant will apply for a negative declaration of tenancy before the Mamlatdar.

(3.) HENCE, we pass the following order :- ORDER