1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.315 OF 2003 1. Shri Gurunath Vishnu Tari r/o Shiroda, Ponda. ... Appellant. V e r s u s 1. Narcinva Vishnu Tari,(Expired) 2. Popat Sitaram Tari, 3. Lingu Poto Tari ( Deleted ) 4. Kashinath Bomo Tari (Deleted) 5. Mukund Venkatesh Tari (Deleted) 6. Nagu Baburai Tari, 7. Ram Vassu Tari, 8. Prabhakar Vassu Tari, 9. Tuku Tari, 10.Antu Deu Tari, 11.Pandhari Poto Tari, 12.Venkatesh Arjun Tari, 13.Rajaram Yeshwant Tari, 14.Rama Raju Tari, 15.Gopal Laximan Tari, 16.Chandrakant Laximan Tari, 17.Sukdo Baburao Tari (Deleted) 18.Pundalik Baburai Tari, 19.Laximan Poto Tari ( Deleted) 20.Babuso Poto Tari, 21.Popat Poto Tari (Deleted) 22.Shabi Deu Tari (Deleted) 23.Kushali Shanta Tari, 24.Raghoba Arjun Tari (Deleted) 25.Shaba Ganesh Tari (Deleted) 26.Anand Ganesh Tari (Expired) 27.Ramkrishna Vishnu Tari 2 Deceased through his LR's a) Smt. Satyabhama Ramkrishna Tari, b) Shri Ashok alias Satyavan Ramkrishna Tari c) Smt. Mira Ashok alias Satyavan Ramkrishna Tari, d) Kum. Uttara Ramkrishna Tari, All residents of Shiroda Goa. e) Smt. Sulaksha Rohidas Vaidya f) Shri Rohidas Vaidya Both resident of Shiroda. g) Smt. Leena Prashant Naik, h) Shri Prashant Naik, Both resident of Margao. ... Respondents Mr. Abhay Nachinodkar, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. Dated: 12th March, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This First Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Award dated 11.8.2003 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Panaji Goa, in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/97. The said Award was passed in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, for apportionment. The Reference Court has held that the persons whose names appear in the survey records i.e. I & 3 XIV form of survey No.50/4 are all entitled to the compensation in equal shares. The land in question was acquired for the construction of the internal road at Shiroda in Ponda Taluka ( Phase - II) which was included an area of 1115 square metres from survey No.50/4 Part of Shiroda Village by the Award. The Award in respect of the land came to be passed on 30.9.1992 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.24,198/- for the acquired land. Since there was a dispute about the ownership, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the District Court by way of reference under Section 30 of the said Act. 2. The Respondents filed their written statement in the said reference stating that the property known as “MUSTABAGVORIL MOROD” also known as 'TARIBAG” also known as ''GORBATA” bearing survey No.50/4 of Village Shiroda belongs to their ancestors and their names are correctly recorded in the survey records as the occupants. They have also houses in the property and that they are entitled for the compensation for the acquisition of their land. The Applicants i.e. the Appellants abovenamed claimed compensation to the exclusion of the persons whose names are mentioned in the revenue records. The above 4 Appeal has however been filed only by the Appellant No.1Gurunath Vishnu Tari. 3. The Reference Court framed the following issues and answered it in terms of operative part of the Award holding that all the parties whose names are recorded in the occupants column of Form I & XIV of survey No.50/4 are entitled to the compensation. The said issues are reproduced hereinunder :- 1. Which of the parties is entitled to receive the compensation pertaining to this case ? 2. What Reliefs ? What Order ? 4. In support of their case, the Applicant No.1 had examined himself. He has produced on record a xerox copy of Form I & XIV of the land in question which was marked at Exhibit 25 and has produced the Matriz certificate marked at Exhibit 26, four receipts claiming to be the receipts towards the payment of land revenue. However, no document has been produced to show the title as claimed by the Applicant, though the Matriz document was produced, it is well settled that the Matriz document is not a document of title. Apart from the fact that the said document is not a title document. It is significant to note that the said Matriz 5 document also records the right of one Gopal Krishna Sinai Gudo and Mono Tari. So also Yesso Tari besides right of Babani Tari. However, what is further pertinent to note is that the said Matriz document pertains to the property Predio Ghorobata ou Goracodil. Since it is the case of the Appellant/Applicant himself that the acquired property has no other name except Taribhat or Tariwado. The said Matriz document therefore does not further the case of the Applicant in any manner. 5. It has also come in the evidence of the Applicants/Appellants that many persons having surname Tari have constructed houses in the said property and that the Applicants did not take action against the said persons. The said fact indicates that the Applicants themselves were not sure about their exclusive ownership right as otherwise both the Applicants would have reacted when other persons constructed their houses in the property. The Applicants have also not obstructed the Respondents for granting permission to the Bhumipurush. The said circumstances therefore give a dent to the case of the Applicant No.1 i.e. the Appellant herein that he was in exclusive possession. 6 6. Reliance was sought to be placed on the document at Exhibit 19 which is the xerox copy of the application made sometime in February, 1991 contending that vide the said application the Respondent Nos. 2 to 26 had given their no objection to the deletion of their names from occupants column of survey No.50/4. The said document was not an original and was addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer. The witness AW1 deposed that he was not aware as to where the original was and as to whether the said document was given to the Deputy Collector. He has also admitted that he is not in a position to produce any certified copy of the said document. It is pertinent to note that even after obtaining the alleged application the Applicant did not file any objection for deletion of the names of the Respondents. It would further be pertinent to note that the Applicant has stated that many of the Respondents have died and the said application was signed by the children of the dead persons. Considering the nature of the evidence produced in respect of the said document at Exhibit 19, no credence can be attached to it, as regards the issue of the deletion of names of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 26. 7 In juxtaposition the Respondents through RW1 have produced the document of declaration giving no objection for grant of plot to the Bhumipurush for constructing a mandap which document is marked at Exhibit 35. The said RW1 has identified the signature of one Narcinva Tari who is brother of AW1 on this document and this position has not been disputed by the Applicants whilst cross examining the AW1. Reading of the said document therefore indicates that all the persons whose names appear in the survey records of survey No.50/4 have given permission for construction of mandap of Bhumipurush. 7. In the light of the evidence produced by the Respondents and considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the Applicants wherein admittedly they have not produced any document of title. The claim raised by the Applicants that they are entitled to the compensation exclusively cannot be accepted. Since neither of the parties have produced any document indicating the proportion in which they held the acquired property the Reference Court was right in apportioning the compensation in equal shares. 8 8. In my view, the Judgment and Award of the Reference Court in the light of the evidence on record cannot be faulted with. There is therefore no merit in the above First Appeal which is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. at*