1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No. 139/2001 1. State to Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji-Goa. 2. The Executive Engineer, Works Division XII, Irrigation Department, Now known as Water Resources Dept. Fatorda, Margaon-Goa. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division I, Works Division XII Irrigation Department, Quepem-Goa ... APPELLANTS V e r s u s M/s. Neeleshwar Enterprises, a registered Partnership Firm, with Establishment at Gudi, Paroda-Goa. … RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. Vahidulla, Government Advocate for appellant. Mr. A. D'Silva, Advocate for respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: S. A. BOBDE, J DATE: 17 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is against judgment in Special Civil Suit No. 9/96 decreeing the respondent-plaintiff's claim for damages and compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for loss suffered on 2 account of carrying on canal work after acquisition of the land. In the acquisition, a part of the respondents' property i.e. Office of Stone Crushing Unit was also acquired. 3. The respondent has a Stone Crushing Unit adjacent to the land, which was acquired by the Government for construction of a canal. In the course of that acquisition, a part of the respondent's property i.e. Office was acquired. That acquisition took place in the year 1983. Apparently, due to some litigation, the Government did not start construction of the canal till the year 1995. Thereafter, it started work of the canal and accordingly, the Engineer employed by the appellant started dumping earth on the raw material and the finished products of the respondent, which were lying on the land adjacent to the canal site. Apparently, the request made by the respondent to the Engineer of the appellant to change the alignment of the canal slightly so that his Crusher Unit is not disturbed was to no avail. The respondent also filed a suit for injunction restraining the appellant from doing the work of canal, however the injunction was refused and the suit became infructuous. Hence, eventually, this suit for damages was filed. The respondent claimed damages on several counts including loss 3 to raw material and finished material and loss of business on account of closure of business activity and eventual shifting of his business. The respondent and his Supervisor deposed on oath as regards loss. The trial Court has granted compensation only on account of loss caused due to the burying of the respondent's raw material and finished products under the earth when the appellant started laying embankment. The trial Court has not granted compensation on any other count. 4. On going through the evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the evidence of loss caused to the respondent on account of burying of his raw material and finished goods under the earth which was excavated due to the laying of the embankment is cogent and in fact unimpeachable. The evidence of the respondent is supported by the evidence of his Supervisor. It shows that the respondent had about 100 Truck load of crushed matter i.e. raw material, about 120 boulders of black metal boulders for crushing. At that time, that was being sold for about Rs. 300/- per cubic meter and the price of boulders was about Rs. 170/- per truck. This evidence has not been shaken in cross- examination and the appellant have not led any evidence to 4 contradict this. In the circumstance, I am of the view that though certain erroneous observations have been made by the lower Court such as absence of records available which could again mean admission on their part, I am of the view that the judgment rightly gives a finding that the respondent had suffered due to the action of the appellant. 5. Mr. Vahidullah, the learned A.G.A., rightly contended that the judgment does not give reason for arriving at a figure of Rs. 2,50,000/- in that the figure of the loss allegedly sustained by the respondent have not been dealt with while arriving at the figure of Rs.2,50,000/-. This submission is correct. However, it appears that the learned counsel for the respondent stated before the trial Court that the compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- would be sufficient to meet the loss. This figure was not accepted by the trial Court in its entirety and was further reduced to Rs. 2,50,000/-. Thus, it would not be possible to interfere in the judgment on this count. There is sufficient evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion hat the respondent may have suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/- having regard to the rates of finished products and raw material stated by respondent and his Supervisor in the witness 5 box, which has not been challenged. It may not have been possible to support the findings if the amount awarded was more than the amount for which there is evidence. Here, the amount awarded is less than the amount for which there is evidence. Mr.Vahidullah, the learned A. G. A. for the appellant, is not in a position to point out any evidence contrary to the findings recorded by the trial Court on this aspect. 6. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The amount deposited in this Court and invested in the Bank shall be withdrawn by the respondent. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE, J. kahale