AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri M. S. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Braganza, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 25.07.2003 passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 114/1998, whereby in a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act''), was disposed of. An area of 1325 forming part and parcel of the property surveyed under no. 104/A situated at Panchwadi, Ponda, was acquired for the construction of a road pursuant to a Notification u/s 4 of the said Act dated 12.12.1991. By the impugned Judgment and Award, compensation in respect of an area of 650 square metres was directed to be paid to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 whereas the remaining compensation was directed to be paid to Respondent nos. 13 to 16 before the Reference Court.
Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has assailed the impugned Judgment on the ground that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the name of the Appellant no. 1 also figures in the Survey Records which have been duly promulgated. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though whilst passing the impugned Judgment, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the compensation with regard to an area of 650 square metres is to be paid to the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, nevertheless, as far as the remaining portion of the acquired land is concerned, the learned Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the Survey Records also stand in the name of the Appellant no. 1 as well as the Respondent nos. 13 to 16. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, Shri V. Braganza, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 has supported the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is cogent evidence adduced by the parties to the effect that the land acquired is part and parcel of the property belonging to the Respondents which is duly registered in the Land Registration Office as well as inscribed in the Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz nos. 781 and 782. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondents have examined a Surveyor/Aw.2, who has identified the boundaries of the property of the land acquired in the Land Registration Office via a via Survey Records. Learned Counsel as such submits that there is no case for any interference in the impugned Judgment.
I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have also perused the records. On the basis of the submissions and the records, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal :
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the land acquired was part and parcel of the property claimed by the Respondents ?
During the course of the hearing of the above Appeal, it is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties that the claim put forward by the Appellants and the Respondents is identical to the rival claims put forward by both the parties in First Appeal no.309 of 2003 which has been disposed of by Judgment passed today i.e. 03.07.2012. Whilst passing the said Judgment in the said First Appeal no. 309 of 2003, I have come to the conclusion that the Respondents have established that the acquired portion of the land is part and parcel of the land belonging to the said Respondents described under no. 20200 and inscribed in the Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No. 781 and 782 and forms part and parcel of the property surveyed under no. 104/1, 109/1 and 72/5. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 by adducing cogent evidence have established the identity of the boundaries of the property as shown in the Land Registration Office and the Survey Records. It is also not in dispute that the name of the Respondents figure in Form I and XIV. Considering the presumptions u/s 105 of the Land Revenue Code, it cannot be disputed that the Respondents have a right in the land acquired. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated in the said Judgment passed in First Appeal No. 309 of 2003, I find that the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the Respondents are entitled to the compensation in respect of 650 square metres of the land acquired in the present proceedings.
With regard to the contention of Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, that the Appellants also have a share in the compensation awarded in respect of the remaining portion of the land to Respondent nos. 13 to 16 before the Reference Court, I find that the Appellants have not made the said Respondents as parties in the above Appeal. Though it cannot be disputed that besides the name of Respondent nos. 13 to 16 the name of Appellant no. 1 also figures, nevertheless, the question of adjudicating the claim with regard to the said portion of land without the presence of the said Parties/Respondent nos. 13 to 16 before the Reference Court, cannot be justified. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Respondent nos. 13 to 16 before the Reference Court have put up an independent claim for the said portion of the property. As the said Respondents are not made parties to the Appeal, the contention of Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, on that count, cannot be sustained. The award of compensation in favour of the said parties to the reference by the impugned Judgment has become as such final.
As such, I find no infirmity committed by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned Judgment and direction to pay the compensation to the Respondents herein. It is made clear that the findings rendered in the above proceedings is restricted to the land acquired herein and it shall not affect the rival claim of the parties with regard to the remaining portion of the property which is stated to be of a substantial extent. Any dispute with regard to the remaining portion of the property other than the land acquired, would be a matter to be adjudicated on its own merits in accordance with law. The point for determination is answered accordingly. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the above Appeal which stands dismissed accordingly.