BIKU CUSTA GAONKAR Vs. NARAYAN ARJUN GAONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is against the Judgment dated 30th December, 1997, of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao, by which the learned Judge has awarded compensation of Rs.2,695.48 p. in respect of plot nos.342 to 352 to the respondents, i.e Narayan Arjun Gaonkar and the heirs of one Somnu Shirputto January.

(2.) FOR the purpose of Selaulim Irrigation Project at Kurdi village, land was acquired by an Award dated 29th December, 1972. An amount of Rs.2,695.48 p. was awarded in favour of the appellant Bicu Custa Gaonkar. The respondent Narayan Arjun Gaonkar filed Civil Suit No.28/77 against Bicu Custa Gaonkar and the said Land Acquisition Officer, Selaulim Project. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, passed an order restraining the Land Acquisition Officer from making payment of compensation to Bicu Custa Gaonkar. On this direction of the Court, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the District Court, Panaji, for adjudication. The Reference Court, after hearing the evidence and after perusing the documents, has come to the conclusion that the appellant has no right whatsoever to 1/8th share in he property known as "Tolsoi Nocodbab" through Pondo Gaonkar.

(3.) SHRI Shivan Dessai, learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged that it must be inferred that the appellant Bicu Custa Gaonkar had a share in the property of Pondo Gaonkar, which was acquired, because according to the learned Counsel, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit in the year 1979 in respect of the property "Tolsoi Nocodbab" and had prayed for an injunction restraining the forest contractor from cutting trees. According to the learned counsel, since the defendants had entered into a compromise with the appellant, it shows sufficient interest of the appellant in the property. This submission cannot be accepted since nothing is pointed out to show that the suit related to the land which is acquired, i.e. plot nos. 342 to 352. Moreover, the mere fact of a compromise would not show a relationship with Pondo Gaonkar from whose 1/8th share the appellant claims. The lower court has rightly observed that the appellant failed to get his name entered in the survey record, particularly since the acquired land stood in the name of the respondents.