- (1.)Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.
(2.)By this Appeal, the Appellant ( Communidade of Colvale ) has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 27th December, 1999 passed by the learned District Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ). The dispute was between the Appellant and the Respondent as regards the entitlement to receive the compensation on account of acquisition of land surveyed under survey No. 102 part admeasuring 9153 square metres of village Colvale. The Appellant has been described as the Applicant in the reference and the Respondent herein has been shown as the first Respondent.
(3.)The contention of the Appellant was that the acquired land was vesting in the Appellant - Communidade and the same was never used for agricultural purposes. It was contended that the first Respondent had fraudulently entered his name in the survey records as a tenant and a declaration of tenancy was obtained by the Respondent without giving notice to the Appellant. The case made out by the Respondent was that the Respondent purchased the acquired land under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1964'). The Respondent contended that a sanad has been issued in his favour under the said Act of 1964. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was a declaration issued by the Mamlatdar in tenancy case No. 3/1977 in favour of the Respondent declaring him as a tenant. The learned Judge has made a reference to revision application preferred against the said order of the Mamlatdar. The learned Judge found that under the provisions of the said Act of 1964 the purchase price was fixed by the Joint Mamlatdar by an order dated 4th May, 1993 and thereafter the Respondent deposited the purchase price in view of purchase of the acquired land under the provisions of the said Act of 1964. The learned Judge held that the Respondent is entitled to receive the entire compensation amount as the land was vesting in the Respondent on the date of the notification of acquisition.