COMMUNIDADE OF CANDOLIM Vs. DY COLLECTOR NORTH PANAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arises from an Award passed by the reference Court in Land Acquisition Case no. 20 of 1987 whereby the reference was rejected and the market value of Rs. 10/- per sq. meter awarded by the Land Acquisition officer was confirmed.

(2.) BY Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) published in the Official gazette on 7th January, 1983, the State government acquired the land of the Appellant admeasuring 3,13,630 sq. meters for recreational and sports facilities including Golf course, helipad etc. at Aguada Plateau, candolim, Bardez. Goa. The Land Acquisition officer by his Award dated 21st March, 1986, fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 10/-per sq. meter and not being satisfied with the said compensation rate, the Appellant/ claimant had moved a reference under Section 18 of the Act and a reference came to be rejected by the earlier Award dated 24th february, 1992. The said Award was challenged in this Court in First Appeal No. 68 of 1992 and it was disposed off by Judgment and Order dated 6th June, 2001. The reference was remanded for recording additional evidence of both the parties, in respect of the Award passed in Land acquisition Case No. 33 of 1983. Accordingly, the Appellant/claimant placed on record a copy of the said Award and A. W. 2, Mr. H. R. Chico was re-examined on 5th April, 2002. There was no further additional evidence led by the claimant. The learned Additional district Judge, who passed the impugned award dated 29th April, 2002, framed the following issue :-Whether the Applicant proves that the compensation should be based on a rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. meter ?

(3.) ON assessment of the additional evidence and by relying upon the reasoning given by the learned District Judge in the earlier Award dated 24th February, 1992, the learned Additional District Judge held that the claimant could not place on record any additional evidence in support of its claim that the market value of the subject land was required to be fixed at Rs. 300/- per sq. meter.