Rajaram Estates and Another Vs. Collector and District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao and Others - Court Judgment

Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 10/08/2006, whereby the reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 came to be rejected.

2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 10.08.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case no.35 of 2002, whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, came to be rejected.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, by Notification dated 16.03.1992, issued a notice under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903, imposing restrictions specified in Clause (b) of Section 7 of the said Act upon the use and enjoyment of the land situated in the Village of Chicalim, Mormugao Taluka, for creation of a safety zone around Naval Armament Depot, Goa, being land in the vicinity of the Armament Deport in Goa, amongst which was the land surveyed under No.126/1 admeasuring 20,350 square metres belonging to the Appellant herein. By an Award dated 16.03.2001, the Land Acquisition Officer arrived at the market rate of the land which was subject to such restrictions at the rate of Rs.28/- per square metre and further awarded 5% for restrictions imposed on the land and, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.1.40p per square metre. The Reference Court noted that there were sale instances produced at exhibit 18 and 19 by the Appellant in support of their claim, nevertheless, the similarity of the land subject to said restrictions with the sale instances has not been established to arrive at a just compensation. The Notification in the present case under Section 3 of the said Act was issued in the year 1992 and the sale instances were of the year 1999. On this count as well the Reference Court found that the Appellant had not established their claim for any enhanced compensation. The Reference Court also rejected the expert opinion of Aw. 2 and, consequently, rejected the reference filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

4. Shri E. Dias, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record when there was sufficient material to establish the market value of the land on the relevant date. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that they have produced documents before this Court in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. The learned Counsel has taken us through the impugned Order and pointed out that the Reference Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence on record. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the application to produce documents filed by the Appellant also deserves to be allowed and examined to determine the compensation.

5. On the other hand, Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India appearing for the Respondent No.3, has supported the impugned Order. Learned Counsel pointed out that there is no material produced by the Appellant to support their claim for enhancement. Learned Counsel further pointed out that no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment.

6. On the basis of the said submissions, the following point for determination arises in the present Appeal:

"Whether the Reference Court was justified to reject the reference filed by the Appellants?"

7. During the course of the hearing of the above appeal, it was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that some relevant documents which would assist the Court to fix the compensation with regard to the restrictions imposed in terms of the said Act were not produced before the Reference Court. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the appellant has filed an application to produce two documents which include an award wherein compensation was fixed under the Land Acquisition Act and the costs inflation index from the income tax department which would be relevant to decide the matter in controversy. Shri M. Amonkar, learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the appellant has not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim for any enhancement of compensation in terms of the said Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge of this Court whilst disposing of First Appeal No.20/2007 and other connected matters vide judgment dated disposing of First Appeal No.65/2002 dated 4/09/2012 has remanded the matter to the Reference Court to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law. Shri S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate has also submitted that the matter can be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication after permitting the appellant to produce the said aforesaid documents.

8. On perusal of the Judgment passed by the learned Single judge of this Court in First Appeal No.20 of 2007, one of us (F.M. Reis, J.) was a party, we find that the Notification in the subject matter of the said cases was also dated 16.03.1992 under Section 3 of the Works of Defence Act 1903 imposing the restrictions in terms of Section 7(b) of the said Act in the Village of Chicalim at Mormugao Taluka, as is the case in the present Appeal.

9. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions and taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Counsel of the respective parties and the said Judgment of this Court, we find it appropriate and in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the judgment dated 10/08/2006 and to remand the matter to the learned Reference Court to decide such matter afresh in accordance with law.

10. In view of the above, we pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The impugned judgment dated 10/08/2006 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Land Acquisition Case No.35/2002 is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao.

(iii) The parties are permitted to produce the said two documents in accordance with law.

(iv) The learned Judge shall dispose of the said Land Acquisition Case afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law.

(v) Parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 3/11/2014 at 10.00 a.m.

(vi) Appeal stands disposed off.