DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. SITADEVI ALIAS JAYA RAGHURAJ DESHPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE request of Addl. Government Advocate for adjournment is rejected and the matter is taken up for hearing. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Addl. District Judge, North Goa, Mapusa awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. metre for the acquired land.

(2.) THE respondent is a co-owner having 1/4th share in the land bearing survey No. 499/11 (part) situated at village Pernem (now Municipal Council of Pernem). By a notification dated 10.11.1988, an area of 4,200 sq. metres of land out of survey No. 499/11 was proposed to be acquired by the appellant for the purpose of construction of a Court complex, namely a Court building and Judicial Officer's Quarters. After completing all the formalities, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO for short) on 28.8.1989 acquiring the land. The LAO awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. metre for the acquired land. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, the respondent as also the other co-owners made separate applications for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act for short). The application for reference made by the present respondent was referred to the District Court and was numbered as LAC No. 77/1992. The land reference made by the other co-owner was numbered as LAC No. 76/1992. They were heard separately and decided by two separate judgments.

(3.) THE decision of the reference court given in LAC No. 76/1992 which has been relied upon by the reference court in this award was subjected to an appeal under First Appeal No. 176/2001. The decision has become final by way of abatement of the First Appeal No. 176/2001. As the decision has become final as to the market value in respect of very piece of land, in a reference filed by a co-owner, the decision of the reference court in relying on its own decision cannot be faulted with. For the reasons stated herein above there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.