AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and award dated 9th December, 2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Panaji in LAC No. 26/1998 partly allowing the reference filed u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (''The Act'' for short).
Vide notification issued u/s 4 of the Act, which was published in official gazette dated 30th November, 1992, an area of 160 square meters from the Survey No. 58/6 belonging to the respondents, was acquired by the government for public purpose i.e. for widening of Old Goa-Pilar road. The respondents/claimants claimed compensation @ Rs. 100/- per square meter. They also claimed compensation of Rs. 1,35,261/- in respect of the compound wall, which according to the claimants was demolished at the time of acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 30/- per square meter in respect of the acquired land and did not grant any compensation in respect of the compound wall. Dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer granting compensation @ Rs. 30/- per square meter, the respondents sought reference u/s 18 of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs. 100/- per square meter in respect of the acquired land and Rs. 1,35,261/- towards the expenses incurred for construction of the retention wall/compound wall.
In Land Acquisition Case No. 26/1998, the respondents/claimants examined two witnesses namely Manuel Rebeiro � AW1 and Escoda Cotta � AW2. The appellants did not lead any evidence. The Reference Court rejected the reference, insofar as the enhancement of the compensation in respect of the land is concerned. However, the Reference Court granted Rs. 20,000/- towards the value of demolished retention wall.
Aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Reference Court after rejecting the evidence of two witnesses ought not to have granted compensation in respect of the retention wall, which was alleged to have been demolished by the appellants in the absence of any evidence to that effect. She further submitted that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has not been arrived at on any rational basis.
The Reference Court in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment refused to place reliance on bill exhibit 7 and estimate exhibit 8 given by AW2 - Escodo Cotta on the ground that AW2 � Cotta was the brother-in-law of the applicant/claimant nor he has produced any receipt for having received money from the applicant. The Reference Court also held that the claimants had not proved any licence for reconstructing the retention wall nor examined any other independent witnesses to prove that the retention wall/compound wall was in fact constructed. However, the Reference Court granted compensation of Rs. 20,000/- after holding that the same was demolished and the applicant was not paid any compensation in respect of the same.
I have considered the submissions made by Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though served.
Perusal of the evidence of Manual Rebeiro - AW1 as well as Escoda Cotta - AW2 does not establish that the compound wall was demolished by the appellants. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the Reference Court was not justified in awarding compensation for retention wall on the ground that the retention wall was demolished by the appellants and that they were not paid any compensation for the same. Perusal of the bill exhibit 7 discloses that the same is dated 5th April, 1993 i.e. much after the publication of Section 4 notification. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Reference Court has clearly erred in awarding the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondents. The respondents have not challenged the rejection of the reference insofar as the refusal to grant higher compensation in respect of the acquired land is concerned and as such the judgment of the Appellate Court has become final to that extent.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is liable to be allowed and consequently, the impugned judgment and award granting compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondents is set aside. No order as to costs.