The main legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent Judgments and Orders from the Civil Courts, which have declared a party as the owner and in possession of the acquired property, can be decisive in determining compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE,J.

1. These two Appeals have been filed challenging Judgment and Order dtd. 27/2/2004, passed by the District and Sessions Court, South Goa, at Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 136/90/1. By the said Judgment and Order, a reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (the aforesaid Act, for short), was decided as regards the claims of the interested parties before the aforesaid Court. Although there were five interested parties who lodged claims in respect of entitlement to compensation concerning acquisition of 8547 square metres of land from survey no. 435/1 at Cuncolim, Salcete Taluka, it was interested party nos. 3, 4 and 5, who led evidence in support of their respective claims. Therefore, the contesting claims of these three parties were considered by the aforesaid Court and, on the basis of analysis of the documentary and oral evidence on record, the claims of original interested party nos. 3 and 5 were rejected, holding that only interested party no. 4 was entitled to the entire compensation amounting to Rs.1,21,480.00 along with other benefits.

2. First Appeal No. 89 of 2004 was filed by the original interested party no. 5 and First Appeal No. 120 of 2004, was filed by original interested party no. 3 and these Appeals were admitted. During the pendency of these Appeals, there were certain orders passed by the aforesaid Court in references under Sec. 30 of the said Act, as also orders passed by this Court in Appeals arising from such orders and there were certain orders passed by the Civil Court in proceedings initiated by the parties. These orders were sought to be placed on record before this Court in various applications filed in these pending Appeals. On all these applications, orders were passed directing that the applications would be taken up for consideration at the stage of final hearing of the two Appeals. Accordingly, the two Appeals along with all the applications filed by the parties under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), were taken together at the time of final hearing.

3. Since, it would be convenient to refer to the Appellants and the contesting Respondent as per their position before the Court below, the Appellant in First Appeal no. 89/2004 is being referred to as party no. 5 and the Appellant in First Appeal No. 120/2004, is being referred to as party no. 3, while the contesting Respondent in both these Appeals is being referred to as party no. 4.

4. Notification under Sec. 6 of the aforesaid Act was issued on 26/2/1988 and it was published in the Official Gazette on 24/3/1988, for acquisition of 8547 square metres of land from survey no. 435/1 of Cuncolim, Salcete Taluka, for Selaulim Irrigation Project. As noted above, five interested parties came forward to claim compensation. Since there was a dispute between the parties, it was referred to the said Court under Sec. 30 of the aforesaid Act. Party no. 5 (Appellant in First Appeal No. 89/2004), claimed that the Survey Records indicated that the land in survey no. 43 5/1 belonged to the Predecessor of party no. 5, bearing Land Registration No. 6206. Party no. 3 (Appellant in First Appeal No. 120/2004), claimed that the said property corresponded to Land Registration no. 17765, which was in the name of its Predecessor while party no. 4 i.e. the contesting Respondent, claimed that the property was registered in Land Registration no. 11223 and that it was called Moroda Carojem, which belonged to their Predecessors. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. A perusal of the impugned Judgment and Order shows that the aforesaid Court discussed in great detail the evidence led by the rival parties and found that party no. 4 and his legal heirs were entitled to the entire compensation while the party nos. 3 and 5 had failed to prove their claims. This was mainly on the basis that the oral and documentary evidence produced by party no. 4, indicated that the bou