SHANTARAM SHIEGAONKAR Vs. LAND ACQISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the Award dated 31st March, 1987, passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji, in a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) BY the Notification No. RD/lon/316/79, dated 22nd October, 1980. issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government notified that some pieces of land situated at Macazana of Pernem were likely to be needed for the public purpose of constructing the approach road | o Colvale bridge. Among other plots, some pieces of land belonging to the appellant were notified. Acquisition proceedings followed, and ultimately, some pieces of land belonging to the appellant and which were notified had been acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated 12th May, 1981, fixed the compensation of Rs 0. 50 per square metre of the land situated at higher level and of Rs 4. 50 per square metre of paddy land. The appellant being dissatisfied with this compensation, applied for a reference of the case to the District Court, claiming a compensaion of Rs. 20 per square metre for the paddy land and Rs. 30 for the 1igher land-By his impugned Award, the learned District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs 6 per square metre for the land situated at the higher level and to Rs. 10 per square metre for the paddy land. He also held that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant establishing that he was entitled to any compensation for the severance of the land, although a piece of land belonging to the appellant has not been acquired.

(3.) MR, M. S. Usgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the appel ants, did not press for the enhancement of the compensation as initially claimed by the appellant in the Memo of Appeal. In fact, fairly conceding that the appellant had not adduced any cogent evidence to justify the enhancement of the compensation, he restricted his case to the compensation on account of the severance of the land. He submitted in this connection that the learned District Judge was in error in holding the view that no evidence existed to justify the granting of a compensation on account of the severance of the land. He submitted that on account of the acquisition of the land, a strip of land about 130 metres in length and about 5 to 7 metres in breadth had been left without being acquired. The said land cannot be utilised at all by the appellant, since after the acquisition of part of his land, the Government has cut the soil and, at the present the non-acquired portion of land is situated at a level of about 10 metres above the public road. There is no access to such land, and, therefore, practically, the appellant has lost a lot on account of the acquisition of the land.