MAHALGO BHUTO GAONKAR Vs. GURUDAS DATTA TIMBLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal at the instance of the original party no.2 assailing the judgment and award dated 5/02/2001 passed by the then learned Reference Court in the Land Acquisition Case No.320/1992 being a reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Act for short hereinafter.

(2.) Admittedly an area of 2400 sq. mts. of land from the survey holding no.15/1 of village Verlem of Sanguem Taluka was acquired by the Government for a Sub-health centre. By the Award dated 24/03/1992 the Land Acquisition Officer, LAO for short, had awarded the compensation of Rs. 35,763/- but on account of the dispute of ownership between the named parties, he had sent the matter to the District Court along with the compensation for its proper determination. The legal heirs of the party no.1 had carved a case that the property of which the acquired land was a part was named "Aforamento Perpetua" situated at Verlem village in Sanguem Taluka described in the Land Registration Office under no.14183 and inscribed in the name of Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Ltd. of which the original party no.1 was a partner. The property was recorded in the name of Sociedade in the Matriz records and which were corresponding to various survey numbers with distinct boundary, the acquired portion bearing Survey no.15/1 being the land in question which was the subject matter of acquisition. The property belonged to the party no.1 and therefore the entire compensation was to be paid to the party no.1 and later his legal representatives.

(3.) The party no.2 who is the appellant had taken a plea that the Government had acquired the land admeasuring 2400 sq. mts. from the property situated at Verlem in Sanguem Taluka for the construction of a health centre. He along with the other co-owners were having their houses, cowshed, huts and fruit bearing trees which were enjoyed and possessed by him and the other co-owners since the time of their ancestors. The party no.1 had no right, title or interest in the Survey no.15/1 and their names were wrongly entered in the survey records based on the Sale Deed dated 26/12/1952 wherein the party no.1 had purchased 8/9th of the property Aforamento Perpetua bearing the Land Registration no.1418 A wrong entry was made in the survey records and as such he had made an application to delete the name of the party no.1 and to incorporate his name but his objection was dismissed. He had preferred an appeal against the order before the Deputy Collector which was allowed and the case remanded to the Mamlatdar, Records of Rights for a fresh inquiry.