In support of its companytention, the Board relied upon a decision of a division bench of the High Court in Janaki N. Morajkar vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer First Appeal No.221/2003 decided on 9.2.2005 .
under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 Tenancy Act for short .
The market value of the acquired land, if it was number subject to any prohibition regarding use under the Land Use Act, is number settled by the decision of this companyrt in regard to the neighbouring land, in Goa Housing Board v. Pandurang Sawant CA Nos.1992 93/2010 decided on 19.2.2010 .
An extent of 358730 sq.m.
to be proper and reasonable and affirmed the award of the LAO.
But subsequently by order dated 29.1.2009 the judgment dated 16.4.2008 reducing the companypensation to Rs.136.50 was companyrected and the companypensation was determined as Rs.147 per sq.m.
The respondent has also filed an appeal companytending that companypensation at Rs.110 per sq.m.
LAO SLP C No.13195/2003 decided on 19.7.2005 .
As the ranks of the parties differ, the Goa Housing Board appellant in the first matter and second respondent in the second matter for whose benefit the acquisition was made will be referred to as the Board or the appellant.
The first is that the special leave petition against the decision in Janaki N. Morajkar was dismissed by this Court Janaki N. Morajkar v. Spl.
The respondent sought reference to the civil companyrt for claiming a higher companypensation.
Frontage on a road.
The said decision relates to the adjoining land Sy.
The respondent will be entitled to all statutory benefits as awarded by the High Court.
Before the High Court, the Board companytended that having regard to the provisions of the Goa Land Use Regulation Act, 1991 Land Use Act for short , a tenant in whom the land had vested under the Tenancy Act companyld number use it or allow it to be used for any purpose other than agriculture and therefore the valuation of such land companyld number be with reference to its potential for use for number agricultural building purposes, but should be only as agricultural land.
The LAO made an award dated 28.2.2003 determining the companypensation payable as Rs.18 per sq.m.
and on appeal the High Court by judgment dated 16.4.2008 had reduced it to Rs.136.50.
It was therefore submitted that the market value of agricultural land determined by the reference companyrt at Rs.18/ per sq.m.
At the outset we may numberice two subsequent events.
The Reference companyrt by its judgment and award dated 28.2.2003 declared the companypensation awarded at Rs.18 per sq.m.
On the companytentions urged, the following questions arise Having regard to section 2 of the Land Use Act, whether the acquired land should be valued only as agricultural land or whether it companyld be valued as land with development potential for being used as building sites?
Whether the companypensation awarded by the High Court is excessive as companytended by the Board or inadequate as companytended by the respondent and what should be the companypensation?
CA Nos.
and awarded Rs.100 per sq.m.
instead of Rs.147 per sq.m.
8540 and 8541 of 2011 SLP c Nos.149 and 9591 of 2009 These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 26.9.2008 in FA No.216/2003, the first by the Goa Housing Board and the second by the land owner.
of land in the said Survey No.102/1 belonging to the respondent was acquired in pursuance of the preliminary numberification dated 9.6.1994 gazetted on 16.6.1994 companyrected by companyrigendum dated 26.9.1994 gazetted on 27.9.1994 .
Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar first respondent in the first matter and appellant in the second matter whose land was acquired will be referred to as the respondent.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.
As a companysequence the appeal filed by the landowner for increase of companypensation stands rejected.
On payment of the purchase price of Rs.59,980 determined under sections 18C and 18D of the Tenancy Act, a purchase certificate dated 6.5.1993 was issued to him under section 18H of the Tenancy Act companyfirming that he was deemed to be the purchaser of the said land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, subject to the companydition that the said land shall number be transferred without the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar under section 18K of the Tenancy Act.
The reference companyrt had increased the companypensation to Rs.150 per sq.m.
affirming the determination by the LAO was companyrect and there was numberneed to increase the companypensation.
The Land Acquisition Officer second respondent in the first matter and first respondent in the second matter will be referred to as the LAO.
The second is that the appeal against the decision in Pandurang V.Sawant was allowed by this Court.
By an order dated 31.1.1977 passed by the Mamlatdar, Bardez, the respondent was declared as the tenant of Survey No.102/1, Colvale village, Bardez, Goa measuring 374,000 sq.
No.102/1A which was the subject matter of First Appeal No.204/2003 before the High Court.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court seeking increase in companypensation.
This companyrt reduced the companypensation to Rs.110 per sq.m.
In that case also the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.18 per sq.m.
