RAJARAMESTATES Vs. COLLECTOR & DISTRICT,MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected.

(2.) The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under no. 126/1 admeasuring 20,350 square metres belonging to the Appellant herein. By an Award dated 16.03.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the market rate of the land which was subject to such restrictions at the rate of Rs.28/- per square metre and further awarded 5% for restrictions imposed on the land and, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.1.40p per square metre. The Reference Court noted that there were sale instances produced at exhibit 18 and 19 by the Appellant in support of their claim, nevertheless, the similarity of the land subject to said restrictions with the sale instances has not been established to arrive at a just compensation. The Notification in the present case under Section 3 of the said Act was issued in the year 1992 and the sale instances were of the year 1999. On this count as well the Reference Court found that the Appellant had not established their claim for any enhanced compensation. The Reference Court also rejected the expert opinion of Aw. 2 and, consequently, rejected the reference filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.