JANUM NARAYAN GAUNKAR Vs. AUDHUTH M.TIMBLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no. 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 41, 43, 44.

(2.) The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 27/02/2002 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 115/1988 whereby the amount of compensation was directed to be paid to the appellants and respondents no. 7 to 44. Respondents no. 1 to 6 who were applicants before the Reference Court were held to be not entitled for any compensation.

(3.) Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment as according to him the property acquired in the present proceedings admeasuring an area of 3140 square metres from the property surveyed under no. 328/1 of Loliem Village which was acquired for the reconstruction of cross drainage in Loliem village. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the property acquired forms part and parcel of the property belonging exclusively to the appellants and that the respondents have no right at all to any portion of the said property. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the whole property corresponds to the property registered in the Land Registration Office at Quepem under no. 3928 and belonged to three persons namely Govind Bhiso Gaonkar, Rama Pingo Gaonkar and Govind Guno Gaonkar. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the heirs and the descendants of Govind Bhiso Gaonkar have sold their share of the property known as 'Tanosso' to the original applicants/respondents no. 1 to 6 herein in the reference proceedings and that the portion which has been sold does not correspond to the acquired portion in the present proceedings. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the appellants are the only descendants of the said Rama Pingo Gaonkar and Govind Bhiso Gaonkar and, as such, they are exclusively entitled to the compensation in the above proceedings. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there were earlier land acquisition proceedings which were subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 137/88 in respect of the property surveyed under no. 328/1 wherein the compensation was exclusively paid to the appellants herein wherein an area of 9,000 square metres and odd was acquired. Learned Counsel further pointed out that respondents no. 7 to 44 have not raised any objection to the receipt of the compensation by the appellants in the earlier proceedings and, as such, the question of claiming any compensation in the present case would not arise. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record and pointed out that the learned Judge has not at all adverted itself to other documents produced by the appellants in support of their claim for compensation and that the learned Judge without giving any appreciable reasons directed compensation in favor of respondents no. 7 to 44. Learned Counsel, as such, pointed out that the learned Judge has misappreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellants are not exclusively entitled to the compensation awarded in the above proceedings. Learned Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.