AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 31-1-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 251 of 1994. Pursuant to a notification dated 23-10-1991, the Government intended to acquire an area of 11,700 sq. meters from the property surveyed under No. 12(part) of Village Bendordem for the construction of broadguage line of Konkan Railway Corporation in Villages Bendordem and Tiloi of Quepem Taluka.
In view of the dispute raised between the parties, the matter was referred by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudicating the dispute raised by the parties, before the learned District Judge.
By Judgment and Award dated 31-1-2005, the Reference Court directed that the compensation is to be apportioned in favour of the appellant to the extent of one half and the remaining one half in favour of respondent Nos 2(a), 6 and 7.
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the compensation is to be apportioned in the manner as directed in the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel pointed out that the entire compensation is to be awarded in favour of the appellant. Learned Counsel further submitted that the property belongs to the appellant and the appellant therein is in exclusive possession of the acquired portion of the land as established by the evidence on record. Learned Counsel further stated that respondent Nos.2, 6 and 7 have failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the property is in ownership between the appellant and the respondent Nos.2a, 6 and 7. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No. 7 has supported the impugned Judgment. He pointed out that the property stands in the name of the common ancestors and as no partition proceedings have been initiated to divide the property by metes and bounds and as such, the claim of the appellant of exclusive ownership of the acquired land deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Reference Court has considered the evidence on record and has come to a right conclusion that the compensation is to be apportioned in favour of the appellant and respondent Nos.2a, 6 and 7. Learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence of the appellant and has pointed out that there is no dispute that the property originally devolved in favour of Datta and Laxman, and that the appellant had admitted that he along with his brother were claiming right from the said Datta and the right of the said Laxman devolved upon the respondent Nos. 2a, 6 and 7. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in passing the Judgment and no interference is called for.
Having heard the learned Counsel and on examining the evidence on record, I find that the learned Reference Court has directed that the compensation is to be apportioned in favour of the appellant and respondent Nos. 2a, 6 and 7. The Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment had considered the matriz record and found that the property which is the subject matter of survey No. 12/1 forms part and parcel of matriz No. 151 and land registration record under No. 5625. The Reference Court has considered the admissions on the part of the appellant in his deposition and has come to the conclusion that the amount is to be apportioned in a manner so directed by the impugned Judgment. The dispute between the appellant and the respondents was the subject matter of another First Appeal being First Appeal No. 163 of 2005 which came to be disposed of by an oral Judgment dated 4-2-2011. The claim of the appellant was on the basis of the same contention as raised in the present appeal. The claim of respondent Nos. 2a, 6 and 7 were also on the same basis with regard to the claim to the compensation awarded in the present case. Whilst passing the said Judgment, this Court found that there was no reason to interfere in the Judgment passed by the Reference Court directing the apportionment of the compensation as directed. For the reasons stated in the said oral Judgment dated 4-2-2011, I find that no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment. In the present case, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the compensation is to be apportioned one half to the appellant and the remaining half to respondent Nos. 2a, 6 and 7. There is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment and as such, I find no merit in the above appeal. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.