1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 251/2004 The President, Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Defence Colony, Alto Porvorim, Barde, Goa. ......... Appellant. Versus 1. The Deputy Collector (L.A.), Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji. 2. The Managing Director, Kadamba Transport Corporation, Panaji. 3. Communidade of Serula. ........... Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. D. Salkar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent NO.1. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : N.A. BRITTO, J.) Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant and respondent No.1. 2 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award of the learned reference Court dated 17.7.2004, by which the appellant's claim to recover compensation as well as for enhancement of the same has been rejected. 3. There is no dispute that the acquired land was purchased by the appellant from respondent No.3 by Sale Deed dated 2.2.1966 and one of the clauses of the sale deed it stipulated that in case the land sold was not put to use, the same would be reverted to the Communidade and, in fact, it appears that orders of reversal came to be passed on 25.1.1979 and again on 19.3.1982. There is no dispute that what was acquired by virtue of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 12.11.1982 is that part of the land which was reverted by virtue of the first order of reversal. The learned trial Court by the impugned Judgment and Award has come to the conclusion that the appellant had not challenged the order of reversal, reverting 31,250 sq. metres of the land. At this stage, it may be noted that after the said reversion, alternate land of 20,000 sq. metres was proposed to be given to the appellant. But, the said proposal 3 of was diligently pursued by either of the parties and the said proposal, thereafter, remained pending. The learned reference Court has also come to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that they were entitled for enhancement. 4. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri Sonak, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant has made two submissions. Firstly, the learned Counsel has submitted that the clause in the sale deed was null and void and secondly, he has submitted that the alternate land which was assured, was not given to the appellant. We are unable to accept any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. The order of reversal, as far as the acquired land is concerned, was passed way back on 25.1.79, much prior to the acquisition and the said order has attained finality. It was for the appellant to have challenged the said order. In case the appellant was entitled to receive the alternate land, it was for the appellant to have pursued the matter and nothing turns out from that in the present appeal. 5. The appellant having not challenged the said reversal order in respect of the acquired land in favour of respondent No.3, it follows 4 from that the appellant had no title nor possession of the acquired land at the time of the acquisition and as such was not entitled to any compensation. In this view of the matter alone, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm