1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO.96 OF 2005 Communidade de Provincia de Bali through its attorney Rohidas Datta Falldessai, r/o Balimoth, Taluka Quepem – Goa. …. Appellant V/s 1. Panglo Bodko Gaunkar, Velipwado Barcem, Quepem Taluka. 2. Dr. Purnanand S. Audi, 3. Suresh S. Audi, both r/o. Pankaraj, Tonca, Caranzalem – Goa. 4. Nami Kuiro Gaunkar, 34, Velip Wada, Barcem, Quepem, Goa. (since deceased through legal representatives) (a) Dholo Kuiro Gaonkar (b) Bhiu Dholo Gaonkar (c) Mrs. Bhiu Gaonkar All resident of Barcem, Quepem – Goa. 5. Govind Janu Gaunkar, Barcem, Quepem, Taluka. …. Respondents Mr. Judas Chagas Silva, Advocate for the Appellant. 2 CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. The dispute between the parties is regarding the receipt of compensation of `35,642.23 due and payable on account of acquisition of 5150 square metres of land of Survey No.133/2 of Barcem Village in Quepem Taluka. 3. Admittedly, the survey records are promulgated and the names of Panglo Bodko Gaunkar and Nami Kuiro Gaunkar (now represented by his legal representatives) are shown in the occupants column of the said survey records, to whom the compensation payable has now been ordered to be paid, by the learned Reference Court by judgment dated 22/11/2004. 4. The claim of the appellant - Communidade was that the acquired portion from Survey No.133/2 formed part of their property known as 'Goncaleamolla' having matriz no.13 situated in Barcem village. It was their claim that the names of the said 3 Panglo Bodko Gaunkar and others were wrongly recorded and the name of the paddy field as Boshmoll was wrongly shown. It was their case that the said property was of their ownership and possession for over 100 years. 5. On the other hand, it was the case of the said Panglo Bodko Gaunkar that the land acquired from Survey No.133/2 was locally known as Borshem-moll and was part and parcel of their property jointly owned known as Borichem-molla situated at Barcem and it was jointly owned by Janu Govind Gaonkar, the said Panglo Bodko Gaunkar and Nami Kuiro Gaunkar and it was a paddy field which was in their possession till it was acquired. It was their case that the Communidade and one Suresh S. Audi whose name is also recorded in the survey records had no right to the said property. The legal representatives of the said Nami Kuiro Gaunkar (party no.5) adopted the claim statement of the said Panglo Bodko Gaunkar (party no.1). 6. The other parties namely 4 & 5 who were issued with notices did not raise any claim to the said compensation and the proceedings proceeded ex-parte against them. 4 7. The Communidade examined their attorney and produced several documents including matriz certificate of matriz no.13 at Exhibit 25 and produced estimates of income for the years 1918 to 1920 at Exhibit 26, for the year 1925 to 1927 at Exhibit 27 and for 1963 to 1965 at Exhibit 28. Licenses were also produced at Exhibit 29 & 31. An affidavit of an expert was filed but he was not produced for cross-examination. 8. The attorney of the Communidade admitted that the Communidade had not taken steps to correct the survey records. Admittedly, the Survey No.132/2 was surveyed as paddy field and in the name of the said Panglo Bodko Gaunkar (respondent no.1 & Others) and, therefore, it carried a presumption that the said Panglo Bodko Gaunkar and others were in possession of the said property. The learned Reference Court has noted that matriz certificate produced by the Communidade shows that it is enrolled in the name of Camara Agraria of Bali and known as 'Goncaleamolla' but neither the area nor the dimension of the property has been disclosed in the said certificate. 9. There is no whisper in the evidence of the attorney even to suggest that Camara Agraria and the Communidade is the one and 5 the same legal entity. The attorney of the Communidade was not even able to say into how many holdings the said entire property 'Goncaleamolla' was surveyed, although the claim was that the acquired property was part of matriz no.13. In the course of his evidence the said attorney stated that the property 'Goncaleamolla' corresponded to two matriz numbers and that matriz no.13 was surveyed under 25 survey holdings and matriz no.7 was surveyed under 7 to 8 survey holdings but, was unable to mention the numbers of any other survey holdings except Survey No.133/2. The licenses produced show that the boundaries are totally different from the property 'Goncaleamolla'. The only contention of learned advocate Shri Chagas D'Silva is that the property 'Goncaleamolla' as well as Survey No.133/2 have a river on their eastern side but no property can be identified with the help of only one boundary and one does not know where exactly the property 'Goncaleamolla' in relation to the said river is situated. In another case, (First Appeal No. 59/2005 arising from LAC No. 59/2005) the Communidade had claimed the acquired portion of Survey No.128/5 and their claim was dismissed and an appeal filed therefrom has been dismissed by separate order. The Communidade had failed to rebut the presumption which was available to Panglo Bodko Gaunkar and the said Nami Kuiro 6 Gaunkar by virtue of their names having been recorded in the Survey records. 10. The learned Reference Court has meticulously considered the evidence produced on behalf of the parties. There is no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-