Admittedly, respondent No.1 was in occupation of agricultural land admeasuring 1,04,000 sq.
This order was number challenged by the appellants.
The possession of the land was taken from respondent No.
By order dated 21.6.1985, the Directorate of Agriculture, Panaji rejected the claim of respondent No.
That numberice was challenged by filing Writ Petition before the Judicial Commissioner.
In the year 1976, the Mamlatdar issued a numberice to show cause as to why the said land being pasture or grass land should number be held to have vested in Government.
Hence, respondent No.1 is entitled to have companypensation of the land under the Land Acquisition Act.
1 for payment of companypensation by holding that the land taken over from respondent No.
meters bearing Entry Nos.457 and 458 new Survey No.326 situated in the village Kachigam of Daman District.
It was made clear that the possession is given subject to respondent No.1 being paid companypensation in terms of and according to laws relating to acquisition in force.
On a proposal of the appellants, respondent No.1 agreed to hand over possession of the said land under a Kabja receipt dated 26.6.1968.
The case of respondent No.1 is that he was number paid companypensation.
After recording the evidence led by the parties including on behalf of the State by the Circle Inspector , the Mamlatdar by his order dated 30.9.1983 withdrew the said numberice and dropped the further proceedings for the reason that he found respondent No.1 was cultivating the land at the relevant date, and, therefore, it was number a pasture or grass land.
Based on the said statement the numberice was quashed by the Judicial Commissioner.
Writ Petition was finally allowed as the statement was made on behalf of appellants that show cause numberice issued by the Collector had been withdrawn.
The respondent challenged the said order by filing aforesaid writ petition before the High Court.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that respondent No.
The Mamlatdar by his order dated 30.9.1983, after recording the evidence, withdrew the said numberice and dropped further proceedings against respondent number1.
1 was divested of vast land on 26.6.1968 against a representation that the same was required for a public purpose for the establishment of multipurpose seed farm and appropriate acquisition proceedings would be drawn up and he would be paid adequate companypensation under the law.
1 was pasture or grass land and, therefore, the question of payment of companypensation fell outside the purview of the law.
1 calling upon him to show cause why it should number be declared that the land had vested in the Government, pursuant to the provisions of the Daman Abolition of Proprietorship of Villages Regulation, 1962 for short the Regulation .
Thereafter in the year 1984, respondent No.
1 would be paid due companypensation according to law in force.
That order is challenged in this appeal.
Again, on 11.10.1976 the Mamlatdar of Daman issued numberice to respondent No.
Hence, the Court quashed the said numberice keeping the other issues open.
1 on 26.6.1968 under a solemn representation that respondent No.
1 made representations to various authorities of the State for companypensation in respect of his land taken over for Seed Farm.
Sometime in the year 1968, the Collector of Daman issued a show cause numberice bearing No.4363 dated 16.10.1968 calling upon respondent No.1 to show cause as to why the said land be held number vested in Government on the ground that the same was grass or pasture land.
Shah, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench Goa dated 11.3.1987 in Writ Petition No.162 of 1985 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 and directed the appellants to take up acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents land in question and to determine and pay just companypensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
