Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 885
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
F.M. REIS & K.L. WADANE, JJ.
Communidade of Colvale – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Collector (Rev) & Land Acquisition Officer & Others – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 293, 294, 317, 318, 319 & 320 of 2005 with Misc. Civil Application Nos. 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147 of 2011
Decided On : 07-04-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:S.D. Padiyar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, P. Kamat, Addl. Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is dependent on ascertaining the tenancy status of the acquired land, and the market value of the land has a direct bearing on the decision regarding the alleged claim of tenancy.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Tenancy Dispute - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18 - Goa Land Use Act - Market Value Determination
Fact of the Case:
The appeals challenged the rejection of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, related to the compensation for lands acquired. The disputes involved claims of tenancy, which were pending before the learned Mamlatdar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was dependent on ascertaining the tenancy status of the acquired land. It held that the issue of tenancy would have a material effect on determining the compensation, and therefore, remanded the matters to the Reference Court for fresh decision after awaiting the decision on the claim of tenancy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation could be determined without ascertaining the tenancy status of the acquired land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the market value of the land had a direct bearing on the decision regarding the alleged claim of tenancy, and the determination of compensation was dependent on the tenancy status. It also highlighted the relevance of the Goa Land Use Act in such determinations.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, the impugned judgments and award were quashed and set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Reference Court for fresh decision in light of the observations made. The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court for further directions.
F.M. Reis, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. P. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 in First Appeal No. 320 of 2005.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that all the above appeals be taken up together for hearing as the issues involved in all such proceedings for determination of the compensation are identical.
3. The above appeals challenge the judgments and award dated 19.07.2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 26/1997 whereby the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as “the said Act”) came to be rejected.
FACTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2005
The subject matter of the acquisition in the above appeal is the land acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.1984 surveyed under No. 218/7 situated at Colvale Village, admeasuring an area of 725 square metres. In the said proceedings, a claim of tenancy was raised by the heirs of Atmaram Sawlo Mandrekar which is under adjudication before the learned Mamlatdar.
FACTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2005
The subject matter of the acquisition is the land acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.1984 surveyed under No. 218/8 situated at Colvale Village, admeasuring an area of 750 square metres. In the said proceedings, a claim of tenancy has been raised by the heirs of Nana Vishnu Govekar which is under adjudication before the learned Mamlatdar.
FACTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2005
The subject matter of the acquisition is the land acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.1984 surveyed under No. 220/1 admeasuring an area of 1,09,090 square metres as well as the land surveyed under No. 218/3 admeasuring an area of 525 square metres totally aggregating to an area of 109615 square metres situated at Colvale Village. In the said proceedings, a claim of tenancy has been raised by one Benjamin Pereira which is under adjudication before the learned Mamlatdar.
FACTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2005
The subject matters of the acquisition are the lands acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.1984 surveyed under No. 218/2 admeasuring an area of 1175 square metres, survey No. 218/4 admeasuring an area of 1425 square metres, survey No. 218/6 admeasuring an area of 650 square metres and survey No. 218/9 admeasuring an area of 1925 square metres totally aggregating an area of 5175 square metres situated at Colvale Village. In the said proceedings, a claim of tenancy has been raised by one Ramkrishna Govekar which is under adjudication before the learned Mamlatdar.
FACTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2005
The subject matter of the acquisition is the land acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.1984 surveyed under No. 218/5 admeasuring an area of 800 square metres situated at Colvale Village. In the said proceedings, a claim of tenancy has been raised by the heirs of Nana Vishnu Govekar and Benjamin Pereira which is under adjudication before the learned Mamlatdar.
FACTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2005
The subject matter of the acquisition is the land acquired pursuant to the Notification dated 16.08.1984 surveyed under No. 218/1 admeasuring an area of 1625 square metres situated at Colvale Village. In the said proceedings, a claim of tenancy has been raised by one Vinayak Chodankar which is under adjudication before the learned Mamlatdar.
4. Mr. S. D. Padiyar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that there was also a claim raised in the references under Section 18 of the said Act that the Communidade lands have no potential of being used for non agricultural purpose as they were tenanted and have restrictions in transfers. The learned counsel further pointed out that as far as the claim of the tenancy is concerned, such claim has been seriously disputed by the appellant. The learned counsel further submits that in fact the purchase proceedings initiated by the
