ANILA REGE Vs. GURUPRASAD M RAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed against the Judgment/Award dated 15th February, 1997, of the learned District Judge, Margao.

(2.) BY Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the Government acquired 1335 sq.m. from Survey No.128/1, 28837 sq.m. from Survey No.128/2 and 2075 sq.m. from Survey No.128/3 for setting up of PSC pipe factory at Sirvoi, Quepem. The above said three survey numbers are contiguous. The dispute between the parties was regarding the receipt of compensation of Rs.6723-93, Rs.1,04,602,61 and Rs.8671.50 awarded by the L.A.O. for the said three plots respectively.

(3.) BEFORE the District Court there were four claims filed. The first was of the said Guruprasad Rege. It was his case that the land acquired comprised of property known as "Podamoll" or "Vavalichir" having Land Registration No.17110 bounded on the east by the hill, on the west by Podamoll of Vithol Babli Sinai Rege now Shivram V. C. Rege, on the north by Podamoll of Vishwanath Sinai Godnis and on the south by Podamoll of Ramkrishna Sinai Rege. He further stated that the same property belonged to Shivram Vithal Rege in whose favour it stood inscribed under No.9.058 and upon the death of Shivram the same property was allotted to him in respective Inventory proceedings under Item No.5, by Order dated 18-6-1974. The said Guruprasad stated that the said property was wrongly surveyed and that it corresponded to the northern half portion of the plot surveyed under No.128/1, 2 and 3 of Sirvoi village and the southern half portion of the area comprising the above plots belonged to Sarita Rege and her family members and the northern portion continued to be enjoyed and possessed by the said Guruprasad and prior to him by his ancestors for over 50 years and therefore they acquired the same by way of prescriptive title which the said Guruprasad invoked for all legal purposes. The said Guruprasad Rege further stated that he and his family were doing all the agricultural works and plucking the fruits of the trees existing therein without any obstruction. The said Guruprasad further stated that the claim of Damodar Verenkar in respect of Plot No.128/3 was totally wrong and misconceived because his property was situated beyond the plots No.128/1, 2 and 3 towards the western side of the road which is the western boundary of the property "Podamoll" of the respondent Sarita Rege and others. The said Guruprasad Rege further stated that the survey regarding Plots No.128/1, 2 and 3 was not properly done and the areas corresponding to the same plots form part and parcel of two properties, one belonging to him, corresponding to the northern half and the other belonging to the said Sarita Rege and other members of her family, corresponding to the southern half of that area and secondly the compensation as far as Plots No.128/1, 2 and 3 is concerned, the same is to be awarded half to him (Guruprasad) and the other half to the said Sarita Rege and her family members.