1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NOS.107 AND 136 OF 2003. FIRST APPEAL NO.107 OF 2003. 1. Sudam Gopal Pednekar, major, married, businessman, r/o Anusuya Building, Durgabhat, Ponda, Goa. .. Appellant V e r s u s 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D.,Cell, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D. XV (NH), Ponda, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2003 1. Land Acquisition Officer P.W.D. (Cell), Altinho, Panaji, Goa 2. The Executive Engineer, W.D.XV (NH), Ponda-Goa ... Appellants V e r s u s 1. Shri. Sudan Gopal Pednekar, Ponda-Goa ... Respondent Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the respondents. 2 CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATED : 14 th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the judgment and award dated 13rd December, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No.86/1999. 2. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('The Act' for short) dated 25th September, 1989, which was published on 24th November, 1989, the Government of Goa acquired lands of several persons for public purpose namely construction of By-pass road. An area admeasuring 1110 bearing survey no.239/0 situated at Ponda was part of the acquired land. In survey record in respect of survey no.239/0, name of Mulla Ibrahim appears. The appellant in First Appeal no.107/2003 (the Claimant) claimed the compensation amount on the basis of the agreement alleged to have been entered by him with Mulla Ibrahim on 22nd December, 1985, by which it was agreed to sell an area admeasuring 1475 square meters bearing survey no.239/0 to the claimant. The Land Acquisition Officer (The LAO) made an award dated 15th 3 March, 1992 and awarded compensation of Rs.250/- per square meter. Aggrieved by the award, the claimant sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.4,000/- per square meter. 3. In Land Acquisition Case no.86/1999, the Reference Court framed only one issue as to whether the applicant (claimant) proved that the rate of compensation of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per square meter. 4. The claimant examined himself and Subhashchandra Bhobe- AW2 and Pramod V. Naik- AW3. The claimant also relied upon three sale deeds dated 1st March, 1989, 25th April, 1989 and 29th June, 1989 in support of his claim. In the application filed under Section 18, the claimant claimed that balance area of 365 square meters which was agreed to be purchased by the claimant, was rendered useless and as such, he was entitled for damages towards severance charges. The Reference Court placed reliance upon sale deed dated 1st March, 1989 and fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs.308/- per square meter. The Reference Court held that the agreement dated 22nd December, 1985 was not a genuine document, but it was 4 prepared with a view to get higher compensation. 5. Mr. A. R. Kantak, learned Counsel for the claimant in support of the appeal preferred by the claimant submitted that the Reference Court ought to have framed issue regarding the entitlement of the claimant towards severance charges in respect of an area of 365 square meters. He further submitted that the Reference Court has not considered the entitlement of claimant towards severance charges and, therefore, the matter be remanded to the Reference Court for framing issue and giving finding on the said issue. 6. Per contra, Mr. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents (the appellants in F.A. No.136/2003) submitted that the claimant is not entitled to severance charges since the sale deed in respect of an area of 1475 square meters was not executed in favour of the claimant. However, he fairly conceded that he has no objection if the matter is remanded only to the extent of framing an issue regarding severance charges and leading of evidence on the said issue by both the parties. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and 5 perused the record. 8. Perusal of the application under Section 18 of the Act by which the claimant sought reference, discloses that the claimant had specifically mentioned that the balance area was rendered useless. As such, the Reference Court was bound to frame an issue to that effect. No doubt, it was the duty of the claimant also to point out at the relevant time that the appropriate issue was not framed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the claimant had made a specific claim that the balance area was rendered useless by acquisition of 1110 square meters of land. As such, the Reference Court ought to have framed issue regarding the entitlement of severance charges by the applicant. 9. In view of the above, the following additional issue is framed : “Whether the applicant is entitled to severance charges in respect of remaining area of 365 square meters and if yes, to what compensation the application is entitled ?” 10. The Reference Court is directed to permit both the parties to lead evidence only on the said issue. It is 6 expressly made clear that the parties will not be entitled to lead evidence on the aspect of compensation in respect of an area admeasuring 1110 square meters. All the contentions advanced on behalf of the LAO are kept open. 11. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 13th December, 2002 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication in the light of the findings given above. The Reference Court shall decide the reference expeditiously. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 19th November, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA