:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2002 1. Lourdes Esmeralda C. Coutinho, major of age, residing at House No.745, Fradilem, Navelim, Salcete Goa. … Appellant. V e r s u s 1. Francisco Rosario D'Costa, Near Union High School, Sanguem Goa. ( Since deceased) represented by Lrs. 1(a) Smt. Colarina Luis D'Costa,widow ( Since deceased) represented by Lrs. 1(a)(b) Mrs. Maria Bernadita Olga Fernandes e D'Costa, r/o tinto, Sanguem Goa. 1(a)(c) Mrs. Elvira Cristalina D'Costa e Travasso, and 1(a)(d) Mr. Lusitano Travasso, Both resident of Zitlem, Chandor, Salcete Goa. 1(b) Shri Minguel Anastasio D'Costa, alias Minguelino D'Costa, Both major of age, r/o Tinto, Near Church, Sanguem Goa. … Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for respondent nos. 1(b) and 1(a) (b). Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1(a)(c) & 1(a)(d). :2: CORAM : S. A. BOBDE,J DATE : 7 th JULY, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of an Award under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the Court, rival claims were made by the respondents Francisco Rosario D'Costa and others on the one hand and by Lourdes Esmeralda C. Coutinho on the other. 2. The rival claims were for the acquired land admeasuring an area of 1400 square metres from the survey no.31/29 of Village Cotarli, Sanguem Goa, for the purpose of construction of water courses-Salaulim. Since the dispute arose regarding the ownership of the property, the Land Acquisition Officer had made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided. 3. It is not disputed that the acquired land is bharad land. It is also not disputed that the acquired land is a part of the larger property which originally belonged to the common ancestors namely Antonio Joaquim Milagres D'Costa and his :3: wife Ana Conceicao Braganza who were the owners of the properties namely Bindesoddo, Nomosso, Pinurgalle, Santomengalle and the house property. The appellant- Lourdes claimed that the property Nomosso eventually came to her by a Gift Deed of the year 1973 from the original allottee. The appellant-Lourdes further claimed that the acquired land is a part of the property Nomosso. 4. On the other hand, respondents Francisco Rosario D'Costa and others claimed that the acquired land is a part of the property Santomengalle, which came to the shares of the respondents in the inventory and, therefore, they are entitled to the compensation. The appellant examined herself and two labourers whereas the respondent examined himself. On the basis of the evidence led by the appellant and particularly the documentary evidence namely land registration certificate at exhibit RW1/A Colly, matriz certificate at exhibit RW1/Z, inventory certificate at exhibit RW1/W and the Gift Deed at exhibit RW1/X along with the Gift of Rectification at Exhibit RW1/Y, learned Judge has came to the conclusion that the property Nomosso, which is the property came to the appellant, is a paddy field since there is a clear reference to that effect in the said documents. :4: 5. Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that in the inventory proceedings, there is a reference to uncultivated land being a part of the property Nomosso. However, merely because there is a reference to uncultivated land of the property Nomosso, it cannot lead to inference that the property is included in the property Nomosso. It is not disputed that uncultivated land may also be land which is a paddy field. Further, it is well known in Goa that the term “Bharad” in which fruit bearing trees etc., are grown does not refer to only uncultivated land but refers to land which is not fit for cultivation of paddy. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge committed an error in holding that the property Nomosso was only a paddy field. It was further contended by Shri Godinho that the acquired land could have been only a part of property known as Nomosso or the property known as Santomengalle and that since the respondents have failed to prove that it is a part of property Santomengalle, it ought to have been held that it is a part of property Nomosso. It is not possible to accept this contention. The findings of the learned District Judge that the acquired land is not a part of property Nomosso, is based on clear and cogent evidence regarding :5: the fact that the property Nomosso is a paddy field land whereas the acquired land is bharad land. From the judgment, it appears that the learned District Judge could not give a specific finding as to the boundaries of the property under survey No. 39 sub-division 1 to 6 and 8 to 34 which is a part of the acquired land and whether these boundaries tally with the boundaries of the property Santomengalle. However, learned District Judge has noted that the property under survey No.31/29 was surveyed in the survey records in the name of the original applicant namely Francisco Rosario D'Costa. The learned District Judge has further noted that the dispute about the deletion of the name of the owner with regard to the land in the occupants column is pending and is not yet decided. However, the learned District Judge has clearly observed that the inventory certificate indicates that original owners Antonio Joaquim dos Milagres D'Costa and his wife Ana Conceicao Braganza were owners of the properties known as Bindesoddo, Pinurgalle, Santomengalle, Nomosso and a house property and that the property Nomosso was the paddy field which was allotted to the appellant. 6. In the circumstances, the specific finding that the property is a part of those properties, which came to the :6: shares of the respondents is reasonable, based on cogent evidence, is liable to be upheld. 7. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE, J. at*