STATE OF GOA Vs. PLACIDO BRAGANZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these applications involve common question and are, therefore, being disposed of together by consent of the parties.

(2.) THE question that arises in the present applications is whether the Court can pass any order which would have the effect of modifying/substituting/altering the consent decree unless parties agree for the same. The consequential question is whether in the present case the relief prayed for by the applicants for refund of the principal amount with interest can be granted.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the applicants commenced acquisition proceedings in respect of lands owned by the respondents herein. The said acquisition proceedings culminated in the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer against which reference was made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the District Court enhanced the compensation amount in favour of the respondents. Against the said awards, the applicants herein filed first appeals against the respective respondents. During the pendency of the said appeals, parties agreed to go before the "lok Adalat" for settlement. It is not in dispute that parties accordingly came to a settlement in the "lok Adalat" held on March 7, 1998 in the premises of the High Court and the Minutes of the Compromise was duly drawn and signed by the parties and their respective Advocates. The said Minutes were taken on record by this Court on the same day i. e. March 7, 1998 and the appeals were disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties by modifying the judgment and decree of the District Court in terms of the settlement. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce the terms of compromise which were arrived at by the parties, which read thus :---