JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench (Goa) dated 11.3.1987 in Writ Petition No. 162 of 1985 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the appellants to take up acquisition proceedings in respect of respondent s land in question and to determine and pay just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

2. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was in occupation of agricultral land admeasuring 1,04,000 sq. metres bearing Entry Nos. 457 and 458 (new Survey No. 326) situated in the village Kachigam of Daman District. On a proposal of the appellants, respondent No. 1 agreed to hand over possession of the said land under a Kabja receipt dated 26.6.1968. It was made clear that the possession is given subject to respondent No. 1 being paid compensation in terms of and according to laws relating to acquisition in force. the case of respondent No. 1 is that he was not paid compensation. Sometime in the year 1968, the Collector of Daman issued a show cause notice bearing No. 4363 dated 16.10.1968 calling upon respondent No. 1 to show cause as to why the said land be held not vested in Government on the ground that the same was grass or pasture land. That notice was challenged by filing Writ Petition before the Judicial Commissioner. Writ Petition was finally allowed as the statement was made on behalf of appellants that show cause notice issued by the Collector had been withdrawn. Based on the said statement the notice was quashed by the Judicial Commissioner. Again, on 11.10.1976 the Mamlatdar of Daman issued notice to respondent No. 1 calling upon him to show cause why it should not be declared that the land had vested in the Government, pursuant to the provisions of the Daman (Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages) Regulation, 1962 (for short "the Regulation"). After recording the evidence led by the parties (including on behalf of the State by the Circle Inspector), the Mamlatdar by his order dated 30.9.1983 withdrew the said notice and dropped the further proceedings for the reason that he found respondent No. 1 was cultivating the land at the relevant date, and, therefore, it was not a pasture or grass land. This order was not challenged by the appellants. Thereafter in the year 1984, respondent No. 1 made representations to various authorities of the State for compensation in respect of his land taken over for Seed Farm. By order dated 21.6.1985 the Directorate of Agricultural, Panaji rejected the claim of respondent No. 1 for payment of compensation by holding that the land taken over from respondent No. 1 was pasture or grass land and, therefore, the question of payment of compensation fell outside the purview of the land. The respondent challenged the said order by filing aforesaid writ petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that respondent No. 1 was divested of vast land on 26.6.1968 against a representation that the same was required for a public purpose for the establishment of multipurpose seed farm and appropriate acquisition proceedings would be drawn up and he would be paid adequate compensation under the law. The possession of the land was taken from respondent No. 1 on 26.6.1968 under a solemn representation that respondent No. 1 would be paid due compensation according to law in force. In the year 1976, the Mamlatdar issued a notice to show cause as to why the said land being pasture or grass land should not be held to have vested in Government. The Mamlatdar by his order dated 30.9.1983, after recording the evidence, withdrew the said notice and dropped further proceedings against respondent No. 1. Hence, respondent No. 1 is entitled to have compensation of the land under the Land Acquisition Act. That order is challenged in this appeal.

3. In our view, considering the facts as stated above, it is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is j