ROHIDAS DATTA FAL DESSAI, R/O VANTEM, FATORPA, QUEPEM-GOA Vs. SHERIFIN BI SHAIKH GAFAR, BENDORDEM, QUEPEM-GOA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dated 31 -1 -2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 470 of 1995. By a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(herein after referred to as the said Act) and published in the Official Gazette dated 5 -8 -1994, the Government intended to acquire land for the construction of Broadguage line of Konkan Railway Corporation in villages Tiloi, Balli and Bendordem of Quepem Taluka admeasuring an area of 450 sq. meters from the property surveyed under No. 12(part) of village Bendordem. In view of the dispute raised between the parties whilst passing the award under Section 11 of the said Act, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 30 of the said Act for adjudication before the learned District Judge. By Judgment and Award dated 21 -2 -2005, the learned Reference Court directed that Party No. 3, the appellant herein was entitled to half of the compensation and Party Nos.4, 5 and 6, the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 herein are entitled to the remaining half of the compensation awarded along with interest accrued thereon. The other parties were held not to be entitled to receive any compensation.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) PER contra the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel pointed out that there is no dispute that the property originally belonged to the common ancestors of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and the appellant's and considering that no proceedings have been shown to have been initiated upon the death of any such common ancestors, the property has devolved upon the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as his descendants. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no dispute that the appellants as well as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are descendants and successors of such common ancestor Raiu Laxman Fal Dessai and as such the finding of the Reference Court to the effect that the compensation is to be shared between the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 cannot be faulted. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment and has pointed out that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in the findings arrived therein that the amount of compensation is to be shared between the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no dispute that the property is registered in the name of the common ancestors of the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, namely Raiu Laxman Fal Dessai and his two brothers Ganesh and Shanu and that the property so registered forms part and parcel of the property which is subject matter of the present acquisition and as such, there is no error committed by the Reference Court in awarding compensation in the manner so done by the impugned Judgment. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the claim of the appellant that there was an oral partition has not been established by any evidence on record nor has the appellant adduced any evidence to establish his contention that he had title by adverse possession. The learned Counsel further submitted that once the title is vested in the name of the said common ancestors, the same devolves equally upon his descendants and as such, the Reference Court was justified in apportioning the compensation between the appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that there is no infirmity committed by the Reference Court in passing the impugned Judgment.