:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2002 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2002 FIRST APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2002 1. The Deputy Collector & LAO, Quepem Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D.XXV, (N.H.) PWD, Gogol, Margao Goa. …. Appellants V e r s u s Ratnakar P. Lotlikar, r/o Sirlim, Masilwado, H.No.56. …. Respondent Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D. Shirodkar, Advocate for the respondent. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2002 1. The Deputy Collector & LAO, Quepem Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D.XXV, (N.H.) PWD, Gogol, Margao Goa. …. Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri Francisco Xavier Fernandes, ( Since deceased represented by Lrs) :2: a) Smt. Florina Vales e Fernandes, wife, b) Shri Xavier Fernandes, c) Miss Pedrinha Fernandes, d) Shri Judas T. Fernandes, e) Miss Rita Fernandes, f) Miss Natya Fernandes, All r/o H.No.69, Ranvado, Betal, Bhatino, Salcete Goa. …. Respondent Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D. Shirodkar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J DATE : 29 th JULY, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals are against the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao, dated 06.06.2002 awarding the applicants Mr. Francisco Fernandes and Mr. Ratnakar P. Lotlikar, the compensation towards the loss of tenancy rights and loss of business. It is not disputed that Mr. Francisco Fernandes was in possession of four rooms of the acquired structure where he was running the business of bakery and Mr. Ratnakar P. Lotlikar was in possession of remaining two rooms wherein he was running a bar. The Land Acquisition Officer did not award any compensation to these applicants, though such a claim was made before him. The :3: Land Acquisition Officer also did not assign any reason for rejecting their claim. As a result of the acquisition, the applicants – respondents herein both had to give up the premises and set up their respective business at some other place. 3. Though they claim Rs.5,000/- per month as loss of income, the learned Reference Court has found that there was no evidence for this income. However, having regard to the admitted fact that one was running the business of a bakery and the other was running the business of a bar, the Court considered it appropriate to take notional income as Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of six months that being the time which would be necessary for rehabilitation. There is nothing wrong in this finding in view of the admission that they were doing the business in the acquired premises. Further, the Reference Court has granted 50% value of the structure and the well in the proportion of 30:20 to Mr. Francisco Fernandes. In addition Mr Francisco Fernandes has been awarded 50% of the value of the oven. As regards the prayer of the State that the landlord who has withdrawn the amount would be directed to refund the amount so that the payment can be made to the applicants was answered by the :4: Court by observing that they can take recourse under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, if the amount is wrongly paid to the owner by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the award by which the respondent Mr. Francisco Fernandes has been granted Rs.18,000/- towards loss of business and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date on which the L.A.O. took possession of the land and at the rate of 15% per annum from the second year till the amount is paid in Court. In addition, Mr. Francisco Fernandes has been granted Rs.39,630/- towards tenancy rights with 30% solatium on the value of the land and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the said value for the period commencing from 12.10.89 ( date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ) to the date of the award or the date of taking possession of land whichever is earlier in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. On excess amount of compensation awarded by this Court, the respondent Mr. Franciso Fernandes granted 9% interest per annum for the first year from the date on which the L.A.O. took possession of the land and at the rate of 15% per annum :5: from the second year, till excess sum is paid in Court, in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. There is also no error in the order of the Court in awarding to the other respondent – Ratnakar P. Lotlikar Rs.18,000/- towards loss of business with 9% interest per annum for the first year from the date on which the L.A.O. took possession of the land and at the rate of 15% per annum from the second year till the sum is paid in Court and Rs.19,586/- towards tenancy rights with 30% solatium on the value of the land and additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the said value for the period commencing from 12.10.89 ( date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ) to the date of the award or the date of taking possession of land whichever is earlier in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. The respondent Mr. Ratnakar P. Lotlikar was also granted 9% interest per annum for the first year from the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the structure and at the rate of 15% per annum from the second year, till excess sum is paid in Court, in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. :6: 6. In view of the above, the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE,J at*