PADMA SRINIVAS MAHALE Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in First Appeals No. 20/2007, 21/2007 and 180/ 2007, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No. 178/2007, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent no. 1 and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. All the above appeals were taker up together for final hearing and disposal taking note of the fact that all the Counsel appearing for the respective parties have pointed out that the issues involved in all the above appeals are similar and, as such, the same can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that in all the above appeals, land belonging to the appellants was notified by the Government of India under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 on 16/03/1992 restricting the user of such land under Section 7(b) of the said Act in the village of Chicalim of Mormugao Taluka. The appellants in all the above appeals having interest in such lands and were owners in possession of such property were affected by the said notification issued by the Government of India. It is further the contention of the appellants that the land which is subject matter of the said notification belonging to them was falling within the settlement zone. The competent Authority by an award dated 16/03/2001 granted one time compensation of Rs. 1.40/- per square metres for the land belonging to the appellants towards the restrictions imposed for the user and enjoyment of the said land. The appellants preferred an application before the Collector of South Goa under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act for enhancement of compensation by application filed on 3/05/2001. The Collector made a reference to the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao on 4/02/ 2002. The references filed by the appellants were registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 36/ 2002, Land Acquisition Case No. 62/2003, Land Acquisition Case No. 56/2003 and Land Acquisition Case No. 66/2003. After recording of evidence and hearing the parties the learned District Judge by judgment and award dated 31/01/2007 rejected the reference filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants preferred the above appeals.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Reference Court has failed to assess the compensation towards the restrictions imposed in the enjoyment of the property of the appellants without applying the well settled principles of law applicable in such cases, when the appellants have adduced sufficient material on record to establish that the appellants were entitled for enhancement of compensation, as the land belonging to the appellants was located in the settlement zone and they have been deprived of just user and enjoyment of such property. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there was sufficient material on record for the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the appellants were entitled to the compensation as prayed for by the appellants and Reference Court on irrelevant consideration has passed the impugned awards. The learned Counsel have also brought to my notice the judgments passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 65/2003, dated 10/ 08/2006 wherein the land belonging to another interested party affected with similar restrictions pursuant to the same notification was awarded compensation on account of such restrictions at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre. The subject matter of the land therein was the property surveyed under no. 151/1 (part) admeasuring an area of 8800 square metres. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the land belonging to the appellants is much superior to the land which is the subject matter of the said proceedings. The learned Counsel have also brought to my notice another judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 39/2003 wherein the Reference Court has fixed the compensation towards same restrictions which are also the subject matter of the same notification at the rate of Rs. 71/- per square metre by an award dated 10/08/2006 in respect of the land surveyed under no. 151/2 (part) admeasuring an area of 8300 square metres. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective appellants have pointed out that the land belonging to the appellants is much superior to the lands which are subject matter of the said proceedings and, as such, according to them the appellants are entitled to much higher compensation than the one awarded in the said proceedings.