IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2008 THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF GOA AND 3 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SMT. LAXMIBAI YESHWANT KURDIKAR AND 15 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Manish Salkar, Additional Government Advocate, for the Appellants. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE, J. Date:- 31st March, 2008 P.C. : 1. The Appellants have preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Adhoc District Judge - 1, Fast Track, South Goa, Margao, awarding compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents with 10% interest to be calculated on yearly rests. Deceased husband of the respondent No.1 - plaintiff No.1 was an allottee of land from the Government of Goa. Her case is that the appellants drew a 33 KV High Tension Wire over the said plot and laid water pipe line in the plot and that some area on the plot was encroached upon by the plaintiffs by making a road. The defendants witness admitted the existence of a High Tension Electric Wire and Water Pipeline inside the plot of the plaintiffs. He however denied existence of the road. However, it is clear from the plan submitted by the Surveyor that there is shortfall of 180 sq. mts. of land in the area of the plot. On that basis, the court has come to a definite conclusion that the appellants created encumbrance on the plot of the plaintiffs and that they are therefore entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and not the larger amount claimed by them. 2. Mr. Salkar, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the encumbrance was in existence prior to the allotment of the land to the respondents. However, there does not appear to be any cogent evidence on record in support of this argument. The trial court has rightly considered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to compensation because of the acts of the appellants on the said land. As observed earlier, even according to the plaintiffs there is a reduction of 180 sq. mts. of land on the basis of the Surveyor's Plan, which has been believed by the court, hence, there is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. skc