S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.) THIS First Appeal by the State of Goa is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17 -12 -1994, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No. 20/1975. By the Judgment and Decree in the subject civil suit, the Additional District Judge has held that the Plaintiffs/Appllicants are entitled to receive compensation for plot nos. 2,3,4, and 5 at the rate of Rs.100/ - and in addition solatium, so also interest. The said suit and a Land Acquisition Reference being Land Acquisition Case No. 67/1981 were tried together in terms of the directions issued by this Court in its Judgment rendered on 09 -10 -1992. The learned Judge on consolidation, heard both the matters, namely, the civil suit and the land acquisition case. The State has preferred a First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree in the civil suit, but has not filed any Appeal or Application challenging that part of the Judgment and Decree which decided the Land Acquisition Case No. 67/1981.
(2.) ON 25 -03 -2011, I had passed an Order incorporating various suggestions which were made to the parties during the course of hearing. It was passed bearing in mind that possession of lands has been taken way back in 1978 and Judgment and Decree in the subject suit is passed in the year 1994. After a lapse of several decades, it will not be fair and proper to deprive the original Plaintiffs and their sucessor in interest of the fruits of the Decree and at the same time no useful purpose will be served in now considering the issue of title of the properties. The lands are in possession of the State and they are being used for the public purposes for which they are acquired or taken possession of. Now, they cannot be handed over back to the Plaintiffs. In the event, the State Government succeeds in the matter, the Decree only in the Title Suit will be reversed but the Order/Award in the Land Acquisition Case stands as it is. The State has accepted this Award and has also paid part of the compensation awarded in the Reference. The original Plaintiffs therefore state that if the compensation amount is awarded for all lands, namely, plot nos. 3,4,5,6,7 and 8, then, it would be the end of all disputes. In other words, on payment of entire amount that the Additional District Judge had awarded and further the State agreeing to the same, the appeal can be disposed of.
(3.) BOTH sides were directed to file affidavits. Accordingly, the Director of Tourism, Government of Goa has filed an affidavit stating that an area of 11,840 square metres was acquired for building of Food Craft Institute at Miramar Panaji. It is stated that lands bearing plot nos. 2,3,4, and 5 only have been acquired and compensation was not paid for which land acquisition case by the original Plaintiffs was preferred. In paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit this is what it is stated: - (4) The Respondents were paid compensation in respect of Plot No. 2. However, in respect of Plot Nos. 3,4 and 5, no compensation was paid to the Respondents. The Hon'ble Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 67/1881 had passed an Order dated 17/12/1994, whereby the Respondents as Applicants/Claimants were held entitled to receive compensation for Plot Nos. 2,3,4 and 5. In terms of the said Order, the Appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,35,498/ - before this Hon'ble Court on 13/2/1996 in respect of Plot No. 3, which is invested in State Bank of India on 12/4/1996. In respect of Plot Nos. 4 and 5, the Appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 71,546/ - on 27/2/1996 in Misc. Civil Application No. 75/1996. This amount which was earlier deposited in First Appeal No. 110/1987 was transferred before this Hon'ble Court in First Appeal No. 63/1995 by Order dated 27/2/1996 of this Hon'ble Court. (5) I say that the Respondents have filed an Affidavit and a copy of which is handed over to the Advocate for the Appellants on 31/3/2011 annexing a xerox copy of the plan to the said Affidavit showing the Plot Nos. 6,7 and 8. I say that the Appellants verified the said Plan with the office of the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, Panaji and found that in the original Plan maintained by the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records, there are no Plots 6,7 and 8 shown on the said Plan. I have obtained a Blue Print copy of the said original Plan from the Directorate of Settlement & Land Records and a copy of the same is hereto annexed and marked as "Annexure B" to this Affidavit, which clearly shows that the so called Plot Nos. 6,7 and 8 are not in existence. I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the original copy of the said Plan as and when directed by this Hon'ble Court. I therefore say that the Additional District Judge relying on the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer was perfectly right in awarding the compensation to the Respondents only in respect of Plot Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 which were acquired by the Government. It is the case of the Director of Tourism that plot nos. 6,7 and 8 are not shown on the plan which is available in the Office records of Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Panaji and there are no plot nos. 6, 7 and 8.;