Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: the present appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, with the consent of learned counsel. 2. heard the learned central government standing counsel mr. mahesh amonkar appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel mr. v. p. thali appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 3. this appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 27/1/2012 passed by the learned adhoc district judge-i, ftc-i, south goa, margao in land acquisition case no.12 of 2005. 4. the respondent no.1 was the applicant and the appellant was the respondent no.2 in the said land acquisition case. 5. the parties shall hereinafter be referred in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said land acquisition case. 6. vide notification dated 1/6/1990 issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 ( the act , for short), land was acquired for camp training of recruits of 3 mtr (2 stc) at cotombi in quepem taluka admeasuring 4876 sq.metres from the property bearing survey no.2/1 (part) of village cotombi quepem taluka. by award dated 29/9/1992, the land acquisition officer awarded compensation at the rate of rs.12/- per sq.metre. not being satisfied with the offer of compensation made by the land acquisition officer, the applicant who was interested in the acquired land moved an application under section 18 of the act before the land acquisition officer and that gave rise to the land acquisition case no.12/2005. 7. the applicant examined .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
oral judgment: heard shri v. a. lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and shri j. p. mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. the above petition seeks to quash the judgment and order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the respondent no.1 as well as the subsequent order dated 02.12.2004, whereby, inter alia, part of the salary of the petitioners was ordered to be deducted for the recovery of the amount due to the respondent no.2. 3. shri lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has assailed the initial judgment dated 24.06.2004, on the ground that the registrar has passed the impugned judgment on the assumption that he is a nominee, when the law provides that such proceedings are to be disposed of upon appointment by a notification by the central registrar to perform the functions of an arbitrator. learned counsel further pointed out that no such notification has been produced by the respondents and, as such, the whole exercise on the part of the respondent no.1 in passing the impugned judgment is without any jurisdiction. learned counsel further pointed out that as the registrar was not duly notified to perform such functions, all decisions rendered by him are patently without jurisdiction and, as such, null and void. 4. with regard to the second order sought to be quashed dated 02.12.2004, shri lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has pointed out that the question of the respondent no.1 executing .....
Tag this Judgment!