Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
U.V. BAKRE
Manuel Barreto Xavier & Another
Versus
Sadanand Vishnu Shirgaonkar
FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2005
Decided on: 27-04-2012
Land Acquisition - Ownership Dispute - Land Acquisition Act - Section 30 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Land Acquisition Act, Section 30 - The court discussed the ownership dispute over the acquired land and the entitlement to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The court referred to the judgment and order dated 10/7/2001, the Joint Mamlatdar's order, and the survey records to determine the entitlement to compensation for the acquired land. The court also considered the absence of title documents and the nature of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Fact of the Case:
The land was acquired for the construction of a new railway line, leading to a dispute over the apportionment of compensation between the parties. The Reference Court found that the Party No. 3 was entitled to the compensation for one parcel of land but erred in its decision regarding the other parcel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Party No. 2 was entitled to the compensation for one parcel of land, while the Party No. 3 was entitled to the compensation for the other parcel. The court also held that the judgment and award were erroneous in part and quashed the decision regarding one parcel of land.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to compensation for the acquired land, which led to a dispute between the parties. The court also addressed the absence of title documents and the nature of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Party No. 2 was entitled to the compensation for one parcel of land based on the evidence presented, while the Party No. 3 was entitled to the compensation for the other parcel. The court also emphasized the importance of producing title documents to prove ownership in such disputes.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, quashing the decision regarding one parcel of land and maintaining the decision regarding the other parcel. The compensation for the quashed decision was ordered to be paid to Party No. 2, and no costs were awarded.
1. This appeal emanates from the Judgment & Award dated 14/6/2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 134 of 1999.
2. Facts giving rise to the appeal, in short, are as follows:
Land was acquired for the purpose of construction of new B.G line for Konkan Railway in Margao city of Salcete Taluka (additional area). This included an area of 110 square meters from Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 and an area of 959 square meters from Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266, both situated in Margao city. By Award dated 20.11.1998, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO, for short) awarded an amount of Rs.1,724.72 paise for the land acquired from Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 and an amount of Rs. 15,036.44 paise for the land acquired from Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. Since there was a dispute between the appellants and the respondent regarding the apportionment of compensation in respect of said acquired land, the same was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court. That gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No.134/1999.
3. The appellants herein are the Parties No. 1 and 2, whereas the respondent herein is the Party No. 3 in the said Land Acquisition Case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case.
4. The Parties No. 1 and 2, in their Written Statement, filed before the Reference Court, alleged as follows:
The land under Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No. 2, Smt. Aurora do Carmo Barreto Xavier and she is entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the said land. The Party No. 3, Sadanand V.Shirgaonkar has no right of whatsoever nature to the said land either as tenant or otherwise and he has sworn an affidavit dated 27/2/1992 to that effect. The land under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No.1, Manuel Barreto Xavier and he is entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the said land and the Party No. 3 has no right of whatsoever nature to the said land either as tenant or otherwise. The Party No. 3 had filed an application for declaration as tenant in respect of the said land under Case No. JMIV/TNC/54/92 in the Court of Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao, against the Parties No. 1 and 2, which case was dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 17/4/2002. The Party No. 3 has not cultivated the said land under Chalta nos.12 and 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 at any time and his name has been wrongly recorded in the survey records.
5. The Party No. 3 also filed his Written Statement and he alleged as follows:
He is entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 8750.64 paise awarded in respect of acquisition of his land in the property bearing survey nos.266/22 (part) & 266/12 (part) situated at Margao. By Judgment and Order dated 10/7/2001, of the Joint Mamlatdar-III, in Case No.JM/III/TNC/62/2000, he has been declared as deemed tenant of the paddy field surveyed under Chalta no. 22 of P.T.S no. 266 of Margao city belonging to the Party No.1. Since he has been declared by the competent Court as deemed tenant, the said compensation of Rs. 8750.64 paise should be ordered to be paid to him.
6. After framing of the issues, the Parties No. 1 & 2 examined Manuel Barreto Xavier (Party No. 1) as AW.1. He produced the Special Power of Attorney given to him by Party No. 2, as Exhibit 14. He also produced the Forms “B” of the survey record pertaining to Chalta no. 22 and 12 of P.T.S. no. 266 as Exhibit 15 colly. The order dated 17/4/2002 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao, in Case No. JM-IV/TNC/54/92, has been produced as Exhibit 16. AW.1 also produced the Affidavit of the Party No. 3 as Exhibit 17. The Parties No.1 and 2 have also examined one witness by name Francisco Almeida. The Party No. 3 examin
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
