1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2008 Shri Jose Onofre Antonio Fortunato Fernandes alias Jose Onofre Fortunato Fernandes, H.No.156, Macklem, Macasana, Salcete, Goa 403 709. ....... Appellant. V/s. 1. Dy. Collector (L.A.), South Goa, Margao. 2. The Director of Sports & Youth Affairs, Campal, Panaji, Goa. ........ Respondents. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date :- 6th July, 2010. ORAL J U D G M E N T : (Per A.S. OKA, J.) 1. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant 2 and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on behalf of the respondents. The challenge in this first appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 17th October, 2007, by which the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has been rejected. 2. The acquisition relates to lands surveyed under survey Nos. 141/2, 141/ 12, 141/13, 141/14, 141/16 and 141/17 of Village Macazana, Salcete Taluka. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was lastly published on 30th January, 2004. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. metre for cultivable paddy fields and at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. metre for bharad lands. 3. One of the grounds on which the reference has been rejected is that the acquired lands surveyed under Nos.141/2 and 141/12 were tenanted paddy fields and in view of Section 2 of Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 the lands could not have been used for any purpose other than agricultural. 3 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that in case of the land surveyed under survey No.141/2, a reference under Section 30 of the said Act being Land Acquisition Case No.26/2006 has been made, which is pending before the District Court, Margao. He pointed out that as regards the land surveyed under No.141/12, a reference under Section 30 of the said Act being Land Acquisition Case No.27/2006 has been made before the District Court, Margao. He also pointed out that the proceeding as regards declaration of tenancy under Section 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 is pending before the Joint Mamlatdar II, Salcete at Margao. The said proceeding relates to the land surveyed under No.141/12. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that in respect of the land surveyed under No.141/2, the appellant will make an application for seeking a negative declaration under Section 7 of the said Act of 1964 before the Mamlatdar of Salcete at Margao within a period of two weeks from today. 5. The appellant has disputed the claim of tenancy as regards the aforesaid two lands. As the references under Section 30 of the said Act, relating to the aforesaid two lands were pending, the present 4 reference under Section 18 of the said Act ought not have been decided before disposal of the said references under Section 30 of the said Act. Moreover, the references under Section 30 will have to be adjourned till the issue of tenancy as regards the two pieces of lands is decided by the Mamlatdar. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, we will have to set aside the impugned Judgment and Award and will have to remit the reference to the reference Court. 7. Hence, we dispose of the appeal by passing the following order : (A) The impugned Judgment and Award is set aside and the Land Acquisition Case No.41 of 2006 is restored to the file of the District Court. (B) Land Acquisition Case No. 41/2006 shall be heard along with Land Acquisition Case Nos.26/2006 and 27/2006. (C) An application which may be made by the appellant for negative declaration of tenancy as regards land surveyed under No.141/2 shall be decided by the learned Mamlatdar as expeditiously 5 as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of the application. (D) We direct the learned Joint Mamlatdar II, Salcete at Margao to decide the case No.JM-II/TNC/Issue/1/2008 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. (E) The proceedings in Land Acquisition Case Nos.41/2006, 26/2006 and 27/2006 shall remained stayed till the issue of tenancy as regards the lands surveyed under Nos.141/2 and 141/12 is finally decided. (F) We keep all contentions of the parties, on merits, open. (G) The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. A.S. OKA, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm