The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit by a person claiming entitlement to compensation in acquisition proceedings, even if the person was not a party to the acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---The revision is directed against the order dated 5th January, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn. at Panaji in Execution Application No. 46/89/A. This revision raises an important question as to whether the suit, at the instance of a person, who claims entitlement to compensation awarded or to a part thereof; in acquisition proceedings, to which he was not a party, is maintainable.

The facts are not in dispute. However, in order to appreciate the relevant question, the facts in nutshell are as under :---

2. The Government of Goa, Daman and Diu on deciding to widen the Panaji/Bambolim/Siridao-Agacaim road, being National Highway 17-A, called upon the Deputy Collector, Goa North Division, Panaji, to draw acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for the sake of brevity). In the said acquisition proceedings, the present respondent received no notice under the relevant provisions of the Act, of the Land Acquisition proceedings, bearing No. LAO 386. Every interested person is required to make a statement regarding the interest of any other person in the land sought to be acquired. However, it appears that, inspite of the Land Acquisition Officer having called upon the petitioner to furnish information of the interested persons, interested in the land sought to be acquired, the petitioner did not state interest of the respondent in the land and failed to furnish all the required information and suppressed the subsisting tenancy rights of the respondents and his interest in the land sought to be acquired.

3. The Deputy Collector, Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji, acting as Land Acquisition Officer, made an Award on 24-3-1981 under the provisions of section 11 of the Act; wherein part of the property 'Odlem Ran', having cashew garden, belonging to the petitioner, of which the respondent was a tenant was acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,14,468.68, and paid the said amount of compensation to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not disclose the interest of the respondent, he was unaware of the acquisition proceedings, with the result the entire amount of compensation was received by the petitioner and nothing was paid to the respondent although he was entitled to receive 50% of the compensation being legal tenant of the land.

4. The present respondent Manguesh sometime in the month of October, 1981 came to know about the acquisition proceedings when the road widening work was taken up by the Government in the acquired land. He immediately; thereafter issued a notice to the petitioner on 18-10-81 calling upon him to pay half of the awarded amount to which the petitioner did not reply. He, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No. 125/1982/A in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. at Panaji on 30th September, 1982 against the petitioner seeking money decree in the sum of Rs. 1,57,234.34 being 50% of the amount of compensation received by the petitioner with interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery.

5. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 31st July, 1986. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 81/86 in the High Court on 24-10-86. The said First Appeal was dismissed by the High Court, on merits, on 14-12-1987. In the aforesaid proceedings, at no point of time either the maintainability of the suit or the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, to entertain the suit, was challenged by the petitioner (defendant in the suit). Though in the plaint it was specifically pleaded by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the said averments were not denied in the written statement by the petitioner while contesting the suit. Consequently, the pleadings pertaining to jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit were deemed to have been admitted in view of Order 8, Rule 5 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document