Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1645
N THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J.
Chandreshwar Bhutnath Devasthan, Goa – Appellant
Versus
Krishnakant Keshav Parvotkar and others – Respondents
F.A. No. 294 of 2003
Decided on : 30-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Menezes, Ms. Gina Almeida
For the Respondent: S.D. Padiyar
The court's decision was based on the limited scope of the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing that the judgment on compensation did not impact the separate proceedings related to the title dispute.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Compensation - The court upheld the respondents' entitlement to compensation of Rs. 64048/- and accrued interest for the subject land, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the lower court's judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The District and Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao answered the reference in favor of the respondents, granting them compensation of Rs. 64048/- and accrued interest for the subject land.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appellant's challenge, stating that the lower court's judgment on the compensation would not impact the proceedings related to the parties' title to the land.
Issues: The dispute pertained only to the amount of compensation and accrued interest, with the title to the land being kept open for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limited scope of the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, focusing solely on the compensation issue and not impacting the title dispute.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, with the issue of title being kept open for further proceedings before the competent court.
JUDGMENT :
By this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 8-8-2003 passed by the District and Sessions Court, South Goa, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 46/1990 upon a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. By the said judgment and order, said Court has answered the reference in favour of the respondents, holding that they are entitled towards compensation of Rs. 64048/- and accrued interest in respect of the subject land.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued vehemently and made detailed submissions as regards contentions of the appellant, in order to demonstrate the error committed by the aforesaid Court in answering the reference in favour of the respondents.
4. This Court is of the opinion that since the impugned judgment and order was concerned with only a reference under section 30 of the aforesaid Act, findings rendered therein would obviously have no impact on the proceedings initiated by the parties against each other before competent Court with regard to their title to the land in question. Reference was made to such proceedings, which was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. The aforesaid fact, as also the admitted position that the dispute in the present case pertains only to the aforesaid amount Rs. 64048/- along with accrued interest, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal can be disposed of in the following manner. The appeal is dismissed. Although, it is made clear that the issue pertaining to the title is kept open and all the contentions raised by the appellant in support of the present appeal can be agitated by the appellant before competent Court where proceedings pertaining to claim towards title are pending.
