IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. SONAK, J.
Ratnakar Rama Parab – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director, Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited – Respondent
First Appeal No.49 of 2014
Decided on : 16-02-2022
Land Acquisition - Tenancy - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1976 - Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 - [TENANCY] - [Land Acquisition] - [Section 4, Section 18, Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1976, Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991] - The court discussed the provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1976 and the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 in relation to the tenancy of the acquired land and the surrender of tenancy rights. It highlighted the mandatory requirements for surrender of tenancy and the implications of such surrender on the rights of the landlord and tenant. The court also referred to previous decisions related to the valuation of tenanted lands and the restrictions on the use of agricultural tenanted land under the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence of tenancy and the lack of evidence of agricultural yield, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the Judgment and Award dismissing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The appellant disputed the tenancy of the acquired land and claimed compensation at a higher rate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquired land was indeed tenanted, and the surrender of tenancy rights did not meet the mandatory requirements under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1976. The court also noted the lack of evidence of agricultural yield from the acquired land. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Dispute over tenancy of acquired land, validity of surrender of tenancy, determination of compensation rate for tenanted land.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory requirements for surrender of tenancy must be met, and the lack of evidence of agricultural yield can impact the determination of compensation for tenanted land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. Sarvesh Samant for the Appellant, and Mr. S. P. Munj learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 25.09.2013 made by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.12/2012 dismissing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act) seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. By notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 31.10.2006, the State proposed to acquire the appellant's land admeasuring 1192 sq. mtrs. surveyed under Nos.29/12 (Part), 29/11, 29/10, 29/9 (Part), and 29/8 (Part) situated in the village Orgao, Ponda, Goa for the public purpose of construction of approaches to Gaundalim - Kumbharjua bridge. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his Award dated 02.08.2010 determined the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 8.75/- per sq.mtr. holding inter alia that the acquired land was tenanted under the provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1976 (Tenancy Act).
4. The appellant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, applied for reference under Section 18 of the said Act and claimed the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court vide the impugned Award dismissed the reference. Hence this appeal.
5. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, at the outset submitted that there was no legal evidence about the acquired property being tenanted. He submitted that there was no declaration of tenancy and the mere entry in Form I & XIV (survey records) does not establish tenancy. He submitted that the alleged tenant had made no claim for compensation and if the acquired land was indeed tenanted, it would be inconceivable that the tenant would not claim compensation. He, therefore, submitted that the Reference Court erred in holding that the acquired lands were tenanted. He also submitted that the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to hold that the acquired lands were tenanted because such an issue can only be decided by a Mamlatdar. Based on all this Mr. Lotlikar submitted that the acquired land ought to have been held as freehold land and the compensation determined on the said basis.
6. Without prejudice, Mr. Lotlikar submitted that the decision of this Court in First Appeal Nos.28 and 31 of 2011 is an authority for the proposition that the market value of tenanted lands, wherever they are situated in the State of Goa is Rs. 150/- per sq.mtr. because this was the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer in an earlier Award dated 06.03.1996 in respect of lands in the village of Navelim for constructing a tourism reception centre. He submitted that therefore, even if the acquired land is held as tenanted land, the Reference Court was bound to determine the market rate at Rs. 150/- per sq.mtr.
7. Mr. Munj learned Additional Government Advocate defended the impugned award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He pointed out that in this case, the appellant had himself produced on record the affidavit of Kashi Vasu Gawade, the tenant (Exh.19). He pointed out that from this affidavit it is quite clear that the acquired property was indeed tenanted and the attempt on the part of Kashi Gawade to urge that such tenancy was surrendered, long after the property had already vested in him, was quite rightly turned down by the Reference Court. Mr. Munj submitted that the Appellants, based on subterfuge, seek to bypass the provisions of the Tenancy Act or the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, and claim compensation that is not due.
8. Mr. Munj submitted that the contention based on the decision in First Appeal Nos.28 and 31 of 2011 was never raised before the Reference Court. He submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever to compare the lands that were the subject matter of acquisition in now referred Award dated 06.03.1996 located in the village of Navelim, Bicholim, Goa and the acquired land i.e. loca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.