AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—The above appeal challenges judgment and Award dated 25th November, 2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji, Goa in Land Acquisition Case No. 260/1996.
Pursuant to a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as "the said Act"), land belonging to Respondent No. 1 admeasuring an area of 2875 sq. metres situated at Shiroda Village of Ponda Taluka was intended to be acquired for the construction of a market complex at Shiroda. By an award u/s 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/-per sq. metre for the acquired land, besides value of the trees. Being dissatisfied with the said amount, Respondent No. 1 preferred a reference u/s 18 of the said Act for enhancement of the compensation, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 80/-per sq. metre for the acquired land, besides compensation for the trees. By the impugned judgment and award dated 25th November, 2005, the Reference Court fixed the compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 50/-per sq. metres, besides other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said
Mr. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court had framed three issues which have not at all been considered, nor answered in the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel further submitted that issue No. 3 was framed in view of the fact that it was the case of the Appellant herein that the reference was barred by limitation. The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event, there are no reasons given by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned judgment and in coming to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land, as on the date of Section 4 notification, was Rs. 50/-per sq. metre. The learned Counsel further took me through the evidence on record, as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that there is no discussion at all by the Reference Court, nor there is any appreciation of the evidence adduced by the Respondent to come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 50/-per sq. metre.
Mr. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents No. 2 and 3 has supported the submissions
Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment. He points out that the market value of the acquired land was much more than the one awarded by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was adequate material on record for the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 50/-per sq. metre at the relevant time. He further submitted that the contention of the Appellant that the reference is barred by limitation is not sustainable in law as, according to him, the reference was filed within the time prescribed by law and in any event, the said aspect was rejected by order dated 8.10.2004.
In reply, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that their right to challenge the said order was reserved along with the final judgment and as such, the same has been challenged in this appeal.
Having heard the learned Counsel and upon perusal of the record, I find that the Reference Court on 27.3.2000 framed two issues and thereafter, on 15.1.2004 an additional issue No. 3 was also framed, 5 by order dated 15.1.2004. Whilst passing the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court has not at all considered the said issues, nor is there any discussion with regard to the contentions raised by the respective parties, on the basis of which, the issues came to be framed. The impugned judgment also lacks adequate reasons for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification u/s 4 of the said Act was Rs. 50/-per sq. metre. The law is well settled that each and every contention raised by the parties and the material brought on record, has to be scrutinized by the Reference Court whilst deciding a reference u/s 18 of the said Act. All these contentions were raised in the written arguments filed by the Appellant on 21.11.2005. There is nothing in the impugned judgment on the comparability of the land acquired and the sale instance. As no such exercise has been carried out by the reference Court, the impugned judgment and Award cannot be sustained. In the interest of justice, I find it appropriate to remand the matter to the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh, after hearing both the parties in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The contention of the Appellant that the reference application is barred by limitation can also be re-examined by the
In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 25th November, 2005 is quashed and set aside.
(iii)Land Acquisition Case No. 260/1996 is restored to the file of the Reference Court.
(iv)The Reference Court is directed to decide the reference afresh, after hearing both the parties, and in accordance with law. All contentions, on merits, by both the parties are left open.
The parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji on 5th April, 2011, at 2.30 p.m. and abide by its further directions.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.