-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 170 OF 2004 Communidade of Carambolim, represented by its attorney Shri Betsabe Valladares, r/o. Carambolim, P. O. Corlim, Ilhas, Goa. …... Appellant V e r s u s 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, North Goa District, (K.R.C), Panaji, Goa. 2. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Rawanfond, Near Margao Railway Station, Margao, Goa. …... Respondents Mr. Umesh Khot, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM :- A. S. OKA F. M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 23 rd June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. Oka, J.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2. The Appellant is the claimant in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The land subject matter of the acquisition was notified under Section 4 of the said Act on 13th June, 1991. An Award was made under Section 11 of the said Act on 3rd January, 1994. The Land Acquisition Officer recorded in the Award that the market value of the land was Rs.10.80 per square metre. The Land Acquisition Officer observed that the Appellant had lost title in favour of the tenants in possession and, therefore, -2- the Appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.0.40 paise per square metre. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the reference was answered against the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant admitted that title was lost in favour of the tenants. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken us to the evidence on record. He pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that the alleged tenants had become deemed purchasers and that the Sanad was issued in their favour. He pointed out that a lease for cultivation of the land subject matter of the acquisition was offered by the Appellant by auction every three years and, therefore, the persons cultivating the land could not have claimed to be deemed purchasers. He, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error. 4. We have considered the submissions. The case made out by the witness examined by the Appellant Mr. Felecido Colaco was that the Appellant used to auction the lease for cultivation of paddy land after every three years. In the cross examination, the witness admitted as under : “I can remember of the last auction which was held only once after liberation of Goa. Thereafter the same people continued with cultivation of this land. It is not true to sugg. that this land was never auction but the same was given on lease for cultivation. It is true that the names of all the cultivation are recorded as tenant in I and XIV Form of the survey nos. of this area. It is true that the person whose name appeared in the tenants column of survey nos of this property were cultivating this land even prior to liberation though they auctioner. I cannot say without referring records -3- of the communidade as to since when these persons started cultivating this land.” 5. In our view, what is fatal to the Appellant is the following statement made by the witness in his cross examination. He stated thus : “It is true that at the time of acquisition the cultivator whose names of shown in I and XIV form of this survey nos for possession of this land. It is true that after coming into force of agriculture tenancy Act, Communidade lost its title to this land and cultivators became the owners of this land.” 6. Thus, what has been admitted by the witness is that, on coming into force of the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, the Appellant lost its title to the acquired land and the cultivators became owners. The Act came into force on 8th February, 1965, which is before the date on which notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published. In view of the aforesaid unqualified admission, the Reference Court held that the Appellant was disentitled to claim any compensation except market value at the rate of Rs.0.40 paise per square metre offered by the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. In view of the unqualified admission of the Appellant which is quoted above, we have no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Trial Court. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*