MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOA HOUSING BOARD AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR(L A ) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. COMMUNIDADE OF CURCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Appeal challenges the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 60 of 2003 dated 23rd April, 2007. By a notification dated 12th October, 2000 the Appellant sought to acquire the land surveyed under survey No. 24/1 of Curca Village admeasuring an area of 71,440 square metres. By an award dated 18th February, 2003 the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 37/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, the Respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for enhancement of compensation and claimed an amount of Rs. 400/- per square metre. By judgment and award dated 23rd April, 2007 the Reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 190.50 per square metre.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. The Respondent after being duly served has filed the cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation determined in the said judgment.

(3.) The learned Counsel Shri H. D. Naik appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and submitted that the Reference Court has totally misdirected itself in fixing the market value of the acquired land. The learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was not suitable for construction purposes. The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale deeds produced by the Respondents are not comparable with the land acquired as they have different features and are meant for construction purposes which is not the case with the land acquired. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has fixed the compensation on the basis that the land acquired had construction potentialities but according to him the land acquired was tenanted and had no such potentialities. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the Respondents dispute the existence of the tenancy in the acquired land, Laximan Gawas and other have claimed the tenancy right in respect of the acquired land and had filed an application for enhancement of compensation which came to be rejected. The learned Counsel has also produced the declaration of tenancy by the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi to that effect. The learned Counsel further submitted that once such land is tenanted and the same stands vested on such tenant the restrictions under Goa Land Use(Regulation) Act, 1991 would come to play and as such land acquired could not be used for any construction purpose. The learned Counsel further submitted that the question as to whether the person is a tenant or not has to be adjudicated before the competent forum and the Reference Court was not justified to decide on such aspect. The learned Counsel further submitted that unless and until the order of the Mamlatdar stands the question of the Reference Court fixing the compensation on the basis that the land acquired had potentialities of being used for non-agricultural purpose would not arise at all. He as such submitted that the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside.