COMMUNIDADE OF CHORAO Vs. SMT. LEITICIA DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 15/1/2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case no.9/1991. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has directed payment of the entire compensation in respect of land acquisition to be paid to the respondent, in a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Act, for short).

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: That land admeasuring 12800 sq.mtrs from out of survey no.89/2 (totally admeasuring 14,440 sq.mtrs.) of village Chorao, Taluka Tiswadi was acquired for a Village Panchayat playground (hereinafter referred to as the the suit land). The Notification under section 4 (1) of the Act, was published in the Official Gazette on 9/3/1989. The learned Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by Award dated 5/7/1990 determined the compensation of Rs. 2,85,629/- towards the acquired land. At the time when the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published, the appellant Comunidade of Chorao (the respondent before the reference Court) was alone shown as the interested party. However on publication of the Notification under section 6 of the Act, the respondent Leiticia D'Souza (the original applicant before the reference Court) filed an application on 12/4/1990 before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming that the land belongs to her late father Domingos Francisco D'Souza and not to the appellant. Since the Form No. I and XIV of survey no.89/2 showed the name of the appellant as the occupant, notices under section 9 of the Act were issued to both the appellant as well as the respondent. Neither the appellant nor the respondent filed any reply before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer eventually made a reference of the dispute as to apportionment under section 30 of the Act to the learned Additional District Judge which came to be registered as Land Acquisition Case no.9/1991.

(3.) The respondent filed a claim stating that the suit land was originally belonging to the appellant and the said land was granted as 'Aforamento', to late Domingos, who expired somewhere in the year 1935. At the time when reference was made, according to the respondent, herself and one Bernard D'Souza, (who is the son of the brother of the respondent), were the only surviving heirs and the legal representatives of late Domingos.