RAMA SUBAHSH NAIK Vs. COMMUNIDATE OF USGAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Judge, Panaji dated 5/10/2001, rejecting the reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) By notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20/07/1992, the Government acquired the property belonging to the Communicate of Usgao for the purpose of construction of four rooms with compound wall for Government Primary School at Kasaile, Usgao, Ponda, Goa. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded an amount of Rs. 33,921/- on account of the said acquisition of the land. By an application dated 22/12/1993 filed before the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicant claimed that he was a tenant in respect of the acquired land and prayed that the compensation should be paid to him. As the dispute was raised by the appellant claiming to be deemed owner of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute to the District Court for the apportionment of the compensation awarded as contemplated under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent did not appear before the Court and the matter proceeded ex-parte against the respondent.

(3.) It was the case of the present appellant that he was declared as a tenant of the impugned property admeasuring 3,450 sq. mts., forming part of the property surveyed under No. 223 sub division 1 of Village Usgaon, including the acquired property. The Mamlatdar also ordered that the name of the applicant be recorded as a tenant of the acquired property and accordingly entry came to be made and, therefore, for all practical purposes appellant was hold to be a tenant of the impugned property, so far as record of rights are concerned. In the course of the adjudication of the reference, the present respondent did not appear. Inspite of that the appellant brought to the notice of the learned District Judge that he was declared to be a tenant in the suit property. The learned District Judge was of the view that the Mamlatdar was not justified in declaring the applicant as a tenant, without there being any evidence before him. The learned District Judge has further observed that he was aware of the fact that his Court has no powers to test the legality of the judgment passed by the Mamlatdar. However, it was further observed that the Court could not be silent spectator to the illegalities committed by the Mamlatdar.