GANGU GAWAS Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAND in which the petitioner claims to be the tenant, of which original respondent nos.3 and 4 claimed ownership, was acquired by the State. The Land Acquisition Officer apportioned compensation 50% in favour of the petitioner as tenant of the land and 50% in favour of respondent nos.3 and 4 as owners of the land. The Award would show that respondent nos.3 and 4 did not dispute that the petitioner is a tenant. The petitioner herein aggrieved by the apportionment moved under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference sought was that as deemed owner, it is the petitioner alone who would be entitled to the compensation, save the amount which would be payable to respondent nos.3 and 4 under the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act. Accordingly, a reference was made to the Reference Court. The Reference Court, on the reference being received, framed points for consideration and/or issues. Issue no.2 was :-

(2.) THE petitioner thereafter by an application dated 9th August, 1999, prayed that the compensation be apportioned in terms of the law laid down by this Court in judgment dated 10th July, 1991 in First Appeal No.40/87 and further, on such determination to proceed with the reference only in respect of enhancement of compensation as applied by the applicant in her application dated 12th October, 1992 and the name of respondent nos.3 and 4 before the Reference Court be struck off as respondents. This application came to be rejected by the order dated 29th August, 2000. The learned Reference Court held that the reference proceedings being original proceedings and as the petitioner had claimed tenancy and respondent nos.3 and 4 have denied the same, the dispute between the applicant on one hand and the respondent nos.3 and 4 on the other hand, required to be decided by the Mamlatdar. Only then could the reference proceeded with both for apportionment as well as enhancement after the applicant obtained a declaration from the Mamlatdar that he is a tenant of respondent nos.3 and 4. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the present challenge.