SHRI FATI LAXIMAN RAUT (D) REP. BY HIS LRS & ANR. Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER (N), MAPUSA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Shirodkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Addl. Advocate General with Ms. P. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The above petition inter-alia prays for a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation awarded to one of the co-owners in respect of the acquired property or in the alternative for any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to withdraw the reply dated 14.11.2012 and 03.12.2012 and make the payment to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per square in respect of ?th share of the property Surveyed under No. 130/0 along with all other benefits.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that by Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as "the said Act") dated 08.08.1991 published in the Official Gazette on 07.11.1991, land was acquired by the respondents for the project of rehabilitation in Sal Village of Bicholim Taluka. By another Notification dated 15.11.1991 published in the Official Gazette on 02.01.1992, land was also acquired for the purpose of construction of Sal Distributory in Village Sal, Bicholim Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer by an award dated 26.03.1993 has fixed compensation for the land acquired 96714 square metres in respect of the property surveyed under No. 130/part of Village Sal, jointly owned by the petitioners and other co-owners. By another award dated 06.04.1993 an area of 8000 square metres of survey No.130/part, situated in the same village was also acquired and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per square metre and since the parties failed to produce the documents of their respective shares as co-owners, the amount was deposited in Revenue deposit without referring to the Court. The Reference Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act by an award dated 01.03.2002 awarded compensation without hearing the petitioners and consequently, the petitioners preferred a First Appeal before this Court which came to be disposed of on 15.11.2008 thereby the petitioners were allowed to file a written statement and the Reference Court was directed to decide the reference afresh. The Reference Court by an award dated 31.10.2009 awarded ?th share in the acquired land to the petitioners as co-owners besides another ?th share to the interested party no.3 Rama G. Raut, ?th share to Vishram K. Raut and ?th share to Arjun Babaji Raut. The petitioners challenged the said award before this Court in First Appeal No. 14/2010 which came to be disposed of on 23.04.2012 whereby this Court confirmed the share of the petitioners to be ?th in the property surveyed under No.130/part. During the pendency of such proceedings under Sec. 30 of the said Act, the petitioners as co-owners did not file any application for enhancement of compensation. But however, the petitioners learnt that Rama G. Raut and Arjun Babaji Raut had filed an application for enhancement of compensation on the basis that Rama G. Raut had ?th share in the acquired land and Arjun Babaji Raut had ?rd share in both the acquisition and filed a reference under Sec. 18 of the said Act for enhancement of compensation. The petitioners learnt that the Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20.00 per square metre and also granted Rs. 15.00 per square metre as severance charges towards the un-acquired land admeasuring an area of 10086 square metres. It is further contended that the petitioners also learnt that the appeal preferred by the Government was dismissed on 31.03.2008 confirming the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per square metre. As the compensation had been enhanced at the instance of one of the co-owners, the petitioners requested the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation towards ?th share of the said property to the petitioners. But however, the respondents did not reply to such request. Subsequently, by a legal notice dated 15.10.2012 the petitioners called upon the respondents to pay the said compensation at the enhanced rate to the petitioners towards ?th share. But however, the respondent no.1 refused to pay the enhancement amount as the petitioners had not preferred a reference for enhancement. Being aggrieved by the said stand of the respondents, the petitioners filed the above petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs.