STATE OF GOA Vs. PRASHANT ANANT NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. None for the respondent. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 18/97. Pursuant to a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") dated 10.10.1985, the appellants have acquired land for laying pipeline and service road of 160 MLD Salaulim water supply project from Mullem to St. Jose de Areal. The area involved in the present proceedings admeasures 1150 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 179/1, an area of 725 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 179/3, an area of 140 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 179/4 and area of 1175 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 179/5 of Mullem Village. By an award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, dated 17.03.1988, a sum of Rs. 7/- per square metre was offered for the land acquired. In view of the dispute raised between the parties including the respondent herein and a person claiming to be a tenant, the dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act to the learned District Judge.

(2.) The respondent also filed a reference under Section 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation and claimed a sum of Rs. 50/- per square metre for the land acquired. By the impugned judgment and award dated 10.10.2000, the reference preferred by the respondent was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at Rs. 23/- per square metre. Being aggrieved with the said amount, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Shri Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has relied upon an award at Exhibit AW1/B passed by the Reference Court which had otherwise become final. He further submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the respondent to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land subject matter of the said award. The Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the similarity has not been established, the question of relying upon such award would not arise at all. The Learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that there was no material evidence adduced by the respondent to establish the comparability of the land acquired with the land subject matter of the said award. The Learned Counsel further submitted that whilst passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the said Act for adjudication of the dispute between the respondent and a person claiming to be a tenant and as such, according to him, the applicant is not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of the acquired land. The Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has not considered this aspect whilst passing the impugned judgment and consequently the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Additional Government Advocate further pointed out that the applicant would be entitled to claim compensation only in case the reference under Section 30 of the said Act is decided in favour of the appellant. The Learned Counsel as such submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The respondent though served failed to remain present.