A valid tenancy must be established to determine compensation; surrender of tenant rights requires strict compliance with statutory provisions.

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 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 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 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 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