COMMUNIDADE OF SHIRODA Vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND MINES AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original claimant in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 13th June, 2005 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the reference has been dismissed.

(2.) THE acquisition relates to the land bearing survey Nos.491/1 and 492/2 of Village Shiroda of Ponda Taluka admeasuring 1,05,100 sq. metres. THE Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 1st September, 1994. An award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 2nd January, 1996 by which the market value was offered at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq. metre. THE claim made by the appellant in the reference was for market value at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. metre.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent (acquiring body) submitted that there are restrictions on transfer of a land of the Communidades and, therefore, this Court has held that the Communidades' land cannot be said to be a freehold land. He submitted that the land of the Communidade is not comparable with a freehold land held by any other person. He submitted that apart from the fact that the sale deeds at Exhibits 21 and 21 were in respect of very small areas, the sale deeds were not in respect of the lands held by the Communidade. He submitted that the sale deed at Exhibit 19 was again not in respect of the land held by the Communidade. He therefore submitted that the sale deeds were not in respect of comparable lands. He submitted that the Award at Exhibit 16 was not in respect of a comparable land and in any event, it was in respect of a very small plot admeasuring 1000 sq. metres. He submitted that the Award at Exhibit 16 will have to be also discarded. He submitted that the appellant has not discharged the burden of establishing that the market value offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He submitted that no interference is called for in this first appeal.