: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

FIRST APPEAL NO. 310 OF 2006

Communidade of Mapusa,

Represented by its Special Attorney,

Mr. Vincent Braganza,

having its office at

Communidade House,

Near the Church,

Mapusa, Bardez Goa.

…

Appellant

V e r s u s

1. Special Land Acquisition Officer (N),

Morod, Mapusa, Bardez Goa.

2. Executive Engineer,

Works Division VI,

GTIDC, Colvale Road,

Mapusa, Bardez Goa.

…

Respondents

Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents.

AND

FIRST APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2006

Communidade of Mapusa,

Represented by its Special Attorney,

Mr. Vincent Braganza,

having its office at

Communidade House,

Near the Church,

Mapusa, Bardez Goa.

…

Appellant

: 2 :

V e r s u s

1. Land Acquisition Officer (N),

GTIDC, Mapusa Goa.

2. Executive Engineer,

Works Division VIII,

GTIDC, Sarvona, Bicholim Goa

…

Respondents

Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Appellant.

Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Respondents.

AND

FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2007

Communidade of Ella,

Ella Ilhas Goa.

Through its Attorney

Shri Vishnu Kamat Helekar

…

Appellant

V e r s u s

Special Land Acquisition Officer,

North Goa District

(Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.)

Panaji Goa.

…

Respondent

Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Appellant.

: 3 :

CORAM:- A.S. OKA &

F.M. REIS, JJ.

Dated:- 5

^th July, 2010.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. OKA,J )

These three Appeals were ordered to be heard together

as a common issue arises. These three Appeals are preferred by

the Claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). By

the impugned Judgments and Awards, the references under Section

18 of the said Act have been dismissed.

2.

In First Appeal Nos. 310 of 2006 and 216 of 2006, the

learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken us through

the award under Section 11 of the said Act as well as the reference

application made under Section 18 of the said Act. He pointed out

that in the award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land

Acquisition Officer has stated that there were tenants in the

acquired land and, therefore, 50% of the compensation amount

has been awarded to the tenants. He pointed out that the claim of

tenancy was disputed by the Appellant in both the Appeals. He

: 4 :

submitted that the issue of tenancy arose before the Reference

Court which could have been decided only by the Mamlatdar in

view of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964

( hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1964). He invited our

attention to the Section 7 of the said Act of 1964 and a decision of

the Apex Court in the case of Madhumati Atchut Parab V/s

Rajaram V. Parab & Others {(2009) 4 SCC 183 }. On

instructions, he stated that the Appellant will apply for a negative

declaration of tenancy before the Mamlatdar.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in First

Appeal No.34/2007 submitted that in case of one of the acquired

lands, the Land Acquisition Officer in award under Section 11 had

awarded the entire compensation to the Appellant and in respect of

the remaining lands, the Land Acquisition Officer found that there

were tenants who were entitled to share the compensation. He

states on instructions that the Appellant will make an application

for claiming a negative declaration before the Mamlatdar. We have

heard the learned Government Advocate on behalf of Respondents.

4.

After having perused the impugned judgments, we find

: 5 :

that issue of tenancy arose at least in respect of some of the lands

subject matter of the land acquisition references. The issue of

tenancy could have been decided only by the Mamlatdar in view of

the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 58 of the said Act of

1964. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the