STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF SPORTS AND YOUTH, AFFAIRS Vs. JOSE PEDRO COUTINHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 25th August, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894') made at the instance of the respondent.

(2.) The acquisition relates to the area of land admeasuring 1350 square meters bearing Survey No. 48/4 part situated at Taleigaon village of Tiswadi Taluka, Goa. The award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was made on 13th September, 1996. The market value offered under the award is Rs. 25/- per square meter. In the Reference under Section 18 of the said Act of 1894, claim made by the respondent was for market value for Rs. 1000/- per square meter. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square meter.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that admittedly, the respondent is a tenant purchaser of the acquired land under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1964') and, therefore, in view of Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1991'), the respondent was not entitled to use the acquired land for any purpose other than agriculture. He submitted that the sale instance of the sale deed at Exh. AW1/B relied upon by the respondent was not in respect of the land held by tenant, who was entitled to purchase the same under the said Act of 1964. He submitted that, therefore, the sale instance cannot be said to be of a comparable land. He submitted that the said award based on the only one sale instance will have to be set aside. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award.