COMMUNIDADE OF CURCA Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REV) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 35/2003. The land belonging to the Appellant came to be acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) on 23rd November, 2000 published in the Official Gazette on 11th January, 2001 for the construction of a new modern central jail for the State of Goa in village of Curca in Tiswadi Taluka. The land belonging to the Appellant sought to be acquired was admeasuring an area of 92,200 square metres from the property surveyed under survey No. 48/2. By an award under Section 11 of the said Act the Acquisition Officer offered a compensation for the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 37/-per square metre, besides a sum of Rs. 56,386/-towards the value of the trees existing therein.

(2.) Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/-per square metre. By judgment and award dated 30th November, 2006 the learned Additional District Judge rejected the reference filed by the Appellant.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. Shri A.R. Kantak, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in refusing the reference filed by the Appellant. He further submitted that the Appellant have produced the evidence of comparable sale instance which demonstrates that the market value of the acquired land was much higher than the one offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. He further submitted that the Reference Court failed to consider that there is no tenant in the acquired land and the persons whose names figure in the revenue records are not the tenants of the land acquired . The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the land acquired had no potentiality of being used for non-agricultural purpose merely on the ground that the land was tenanted which is erroneous. The learned Counsel further submitted that as there is no tenant in the acquired land and the question of applying the provisions as provided in the Goa Land Use ( Regulation) Act, 1991 would not arise. The learned Counsel as such submitted that in any event the dispute with regard to the tenancy has been referred to the competent authority by the Reference Court wherein the proceedings under Section 30 of the said Act are under adjudication.