DR. ARMANDO DE SILVA, DENTAL SURGEON, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 266, NAGOA VERNA, SALCETE, GOA AND ORS. Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SOUTH GOA, KRCL, AMEY GUEST HOUSE, DAVORLIM ROAD, P.O. NAVELIM, SALCETE, GOA-403707,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 1 -7 -2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 256 of 1995. Land was acquired belonging to the appellants pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the construction of a new broad gauge line for Konkan Railway in Nagoa Village from the property surveyed under Nos.101/1, 101/5, 102/2 and 102/3. Being dissatisfied with the award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation and claimed compensation for the land acquired to the tune of Rs. 5,22,000/ - besides compensation for severance at the rate of Rs. 300/ - per sq. meter and compensation for coconut trees and cashew trees and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as damages on account of the value of the crop of coconuts taken by the respondents. By Judgment and Award dated 1 -7 -2005, the Reference Court rejected the said reference. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) SHRI M. P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that besides the said survey numbers there is another portion of the property bearing No. 10/1 which was not included in the statement made under Section 19 of the said Act by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Counsel further submitted that the property surveyed under No. 10/1 was subject matter of the reference proceedings and as such, the application for amendment filed by the appellants to incorporate the said survey number in the reference proceedings was wrongly rejected by Order dated 25 -6 -2004. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants are also impugning the said Order in the present appeal along with the Judgment passed on merits. Learned Counsel pointed out that though the compensation has been claimed not on the basis of comparable sales method but on the basis of capitalization method, the Reference Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the appellants were not entitled for enhancement of compensation. Learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and stated that the reduction of the number of coconuts sold by the appellants after the acquisition establishes the yield in the acquired portion of the land. Learned Counsel took me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence on record and as such came to erroneous conclusions. Learned Counsel further submitted that the land acquired was fertile land having coconut grove and the same was being well maintained by the appellants and as such, the appellants were entitled for the compensation of the agricultural land on the basis of the yield after applying an appropriate multiplier. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellants have established the yield of the coconut trees in the acquired land and as such, it was incumbent upon the Reference Court to calculate the net income in the acquired portion of the land and thereafter apply a suitable multiplier for the purpose of fixing the compensation to the appellants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has not at all applied the well settled principles of law in fixing the compensation and as such, the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside and an enhancement of the compensation be awarded in favour of the appellants.

(3.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, the following points for determination arise: -