SHRI ANTONIO MARTINS (DEC.) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS (SON) JOSE MARTINS Vs. SMT. FANNY LYDIA DSILVA AND SMT. LOURENTINA RODRIGUES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and Shri P. A. Kholkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) THE main grievance raised by Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that though Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were occupying structures in the acquired portion of the land, for business purpose, the Reference Court was not justified to apportion the compensation to 3/4th as far as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and the remaining 1/4th to the Appellant. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the owners are entitled for the whole compensation awarded and according to him Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were mere licensees and not entitled to any compensation as Respondent No. 1 was running a bakery in the acquired portion of the land and Respondent No. 2 was running a bar in the same portion. Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court without any justification awarded 3/4th compensation in favour of the said Respondents. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the contention of the Respondents that they were owners has not been established by any evidence on record. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is no legal reasons given by the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the Respondents were entitled to 3/4th compensation. Learned Senior Counsel as such pointed out that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following point for determination arises.