KAKADE P.V., J.: - Heard both sides.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge, Margao, rejecting the reference under section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. After hearing both the parties for sometime, it is obvious that the lower Court rejected the reference observing that in the said case no value was determined for plot No. 137 held on aforementioned by the applicant and, therefore, he was held to be not entitled to be succeeded in the said reference.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to my notice unreported order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2558 of 1989 in the case of (Sri Piedade Fernandes v. Union of India)1, wherein it was observed that despite the restrictive covenant, the lessee is entitled to the compensation to the extent of his interest in the acquired lands, since the Government, by necessary implication, had recognised the interest in the lease hold property held by the lessee. In my considered view, therefore, this aspect which is not taken into account by the lower Court has to be properly considered for which purpose the only remedy would be to remand the matter for hearing afresh, in the light of said ruling of the Apex Court. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 28/02/2003 rejecting the reference under section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Court, Margao for hearing afresh, after giving both the parties sufficient opportunity to put up their cases and further directed that the District Court shall decide the reference within a period of6 months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of with no orders as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document