LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-205

BARTOLOMEU ANTONIO DA COSTA Vs. STATE OF GOA

Decided On August 12, 2010
BARTOLOMEU ANTONIO DA COSTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GOA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Appeal filed by the Appellant challenges the Judgment and Award dated 30th September, 2005, whereby the reference filed by the Appellant seeking for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be answered in the negative.

(2.) By Notification bearing no. 22/31/99-RD dated 20th August, 1999, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as 'the said Act'), published in Government Gazette dated 2nd September, 1999, the land was acquired for the construction of the four lane road from Verna National Highway 17 junction to Mormugao Harbour. The acquisition was in respect of different sections of land which were located in different Villages including Cortalim, Sancoale, Pale and Dabolim and Vasco City. One of the subject matter of the said acquisition is the property surveyed under survey no.115/2 situated at rural area of Sancoale Village where by an area of 3870 square metres was acquired by the said Notification. By an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 11th December, 2002, under Section 11 of the said Act, the market value of the said land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. Being dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation, the Appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs.375/- per square metre for the land acquired besides a sum of Rs.29,600/- on account of the value of the rubble wall and a sum of Rs.4,96,500/- towards severance charges.

(3.) After recording of evidence and hearing the parties, the Reference Court by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30th September, 2005, rejected the said reference and held that the Appellant had failed to establish that he was entitled for enhancement of compensation. With regard to the two claims put forth by the Appellant, the Reference Court held that the Appellant was not entitled for any such amounts claimed therein.