203-FA-49-2014.DOC

Suchitra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO.49/2014

SHRI RATNAKAR RAMA PARAB

major, resident of Sarvesh Niwas,

House No.685, Marcel, Goa.

...APPELLANT

Versus

The Managing Director,

Goa State Infrastructure

Development Corporation

Limited, EDC House,

7^th Floor, Panaji, Goa.

…RESPONDENTS

Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Samant,

Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. S. P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for the

Respondent-State.

CORAM:

M. S. SONAK, J.

Reserved on:

Pronounced on:

10^th February 2022

16^th February 2022

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.

Page 1 of 16

16^th February 2022

203-FA-49-2014.DOC

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.

Page 2 of 16

16^th February 2022

203-FA-49-2014.DOC

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

Page 3 of 16

16^th February 2022

203-FA-49-2014.DOC

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