SHRI RAMA SHANU Vs. MENINO SALVADOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals have been filed challenging Judgment and Order dtd. 27/2/2004, passed by the District and Sessions Court, South Goa, at Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 136/90/1. By the said Judgment and Order, a reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (the aforesaid Act, for short), was decided as regards the claims of the interested parties before the aforesaid Court. Although there were five interested parties who lodged claims in respect of entitlement to compensation concerning acquisition of 8547 square metres of land from survey no. 435/1 at Cuncolim, Salcete Taluka, it was interested party nos. 3, 4 and 5, who led evidence in support of their respective claims. Therefore, the contesting claims of these three parties were considered by the aforesaid Court and, on the basis of analysis of the documentary and oral evidence on record, the claims of original interested party nos. 3 and 5 were rejected, holding that only interested party no. 4 was entitled to the entire compensation amounting to Rs.1,21,480.00 along with other benefits.

(2.) First Appeal No. 89 of 2004 was filed by the original interested party no. 5 and First Appeal No. 120 of 2004, was filed by original interested party no. 3 and these Appeals were admitted. During the pendency of these Appeals, there were certain orders passed by the aforesaid Court in references under Sec. 30 of the said Act, as also orders passed by this Court in Appeals arising from such orders and there were certain orders passed by the Civil Court in proceedings initiated by the parties. These orders were sought to be placed on record before this Court in various applications filed in these pending Appeals. On all these applications, orders were passed directing that the applications would be taken up for consideration at the stage of final hearing of the two Appeals. Accordingly, the two Appeals along with all the applications filed by the parties under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), were taken together at the time of final hearing.

(3.) Since, it would be convenient to refer to the Appellants and the contesting Respondent as per their position before the Court below, the Appellant in First Appeal no. 89/2004 is being referred to as party no. 5 and the Appellant in First Appeal No. 120/2004, is being referred to as party no. 3, while the contesting Respondent in both these Appeals is being referred to as party no. 4.