It is well
settled that a document of matriz cannot confer title and once the
survey records under the Land Revenue Code came into force, the
matriz records lost their value, since in terms of Section 107 of the
Land Revenue Code, once the presumption under Section 105 is
available from the records prepared under this Code, the presumption,
if any, arising under the old existing records ceases to have any value.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO.255 OF 2006
Communidade of Quitol,
Versus
1. The President,
Fabrica of Betul Church,
CORAM: U. V. BAKRE, J.
DATE: 26TH JULY, 2013.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award
dated 04/08/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
3
(III), Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 39/1994.
3.
An area of 94,250 square metres of land from survey no.
77/1 of village Quitol of Quepem Taluka was acquired for setting up
an Institution for Petroleum Safety and Environment Management for
Oil and Natural Gas Commission at Betul in Quitol village. By
award dated 17/6/1992, an amount of ` 1,17,994/- was fixed, by the
Land Acquisition Officer, as the market value of the said acquired
land. However, since the ownership of the said acquired land was in
dispute, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under section
30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the District Court which
gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No. 39/1994.
4.
The appellants, in their written statement, filed before the
reference Court, alleged that they are the owners in possession of the
property “Oiteral” also known as “Otleamolla” and “Chincnamolla”
bearing matriz no. 161, situated in Village Quitol. The appellants
further alleged that the survey records wrongly stand in the name of
respondent no. 2 and that the property purchased by the respondent
no. 2 does not fall within survey no. 77/1. On that ground the
appellants claimed the entire compensation.
5.
The respondent no. 2, in his written statement, pleaded
that by sale deed dated 3/9/1969, he had purchased three properties
from Govind Balsu Naik Dessai and his wife. He described all the
said three properties by giving the land registration numbers and
matriz numbers as well as the boundaries. He further pleaded that
the said properties are together surveyed under survey nos. 71/4, 73,
75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81 and 82 with various sub-divisions of village
Quitol.
He submitted that the possession of acquired land
admeasuring 94,250 square metres from survey no. 77/1 was taken
from him on 23/7/1990. He, therefore, prayed that entire
compensation be paid to him.
6.
The other parties to the said reference did not file any
written statement.
7.
Accordingly, issues were framed by the reference Court
as per the rival contentions of the appellants and the respondent no. 2.
The appellants examined their Power of Attorney holder namely
Subhash Chandra Naik Dessai as AW 1, one Dayanand Fal Dessai as
AW 2, one Rajendra Naik Dessai as AW 3 and also an Engineer by
name Vikas Dessai as VW1. The respondent no. 1 examined himself
as P3-W1 and a Surveyor by name Rasiklal Dangui as P3-W2.
8.
Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the
reference Court held that as against the title documents of sale deed
produced by P3-W1 (respondent no. 2) and the survey records
standing in his name, the appellants have not produced any title
documents to support their claim. Consequently, the entire
compensation of ` 1,17,994/- deposited in that Court along with
accrued interest has been ordered to be paid to the respondent no. 2.
The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award.
The other parties to the reference, who had not filed any written
statement, have not challenged the said Judgment and award. In other
words, the dispute now is only between the appellants and the legal
representatives of deceased respondent no. 2.
9.
Mr. Talaulikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, submitted that the respondent no. 2 has failed to prove
the title of his predecessors. He submitted that the vendors of the said
sale deed did not have title to the acquired land. He, therefore,
submitted that the sale deed dated 3/9/1969 cannot be given any
value.
He further submitted that there was a Lease Agreement
between the appellants and Shantilal Gosalia by which the appellants
had permitted Shantilal to deposit ore in some portion of survey no.
77/1 and the property purchased by respondent no. 2 is not the same.
He urged that the evidence produced by the appellants duly prove
their possession and enjoyment in respect of the property which was
acquired. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and
award be quashed and set aside and the entire compensation be
awarded to the appellants.
10.
On the other hand, Mr. Naik on behalf of the legal
representatives of respondent no. 2, submitted that by sale deed dated
3/9/1969, the respondent no. 2 purchased three properties which
include the acquired land
and that this sale deed has not been
challenged. He further submitted that besides the said title document,
the respondent no. 2 is armed with promulgated survey records
wherein no other name except that of Vinodkumar Gosalia figures.
He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award is in
accordance with settled principles of law and no interference is called
for.
7
11.
I have gone through the records and considered the
arguments advanced by both the parties.
12.
The point that arises for determination is as to which
party is entitled to receive the compensation, whether it is the
appellants or whether it is the respondent no. 2.
13.
It is seen from the records that the respondent no. 2 had
stepped into the witness box and had produced the sale deed dated
3/9/1969, sketch prepared by surveyor, rectification deed dated
3/9/1969, a certificate obtained in R.C.S. 26/1995 and copy of the
revenue receipt dated 7/11/1989
as Exhibit P5-W1/A colly.
He
produced the plan annexed to the said sale deed dated 3/9/1969. In
hin affidavit-in-evidence, the respondent no. 2 stated that he
purchased three properties by this sale deed and that the said
properties together are surveyed under No. 71/4, 73,75, 76, 77, 79,
80, 81, and 82 with various sub-divisions. He stated that the
possession of the acquired land was taken from him on 23/7/1990.
14.
The promulgated survey record in Form No. I and XIV in
respect of Survey no. 77/1 shows the name of Mr. Vinodkumar
8
Gosalia that is the respondent no. 2 and there is no other name
figuring in the survey records and this fact is admitted by AW 1, the
attorney of the appellants. As against this, the appellants have
produced on record only the matriz document of matriz no. 161.
There is no Tombo register in respect of the acquired land. It is well
settled that a document of matriz cannot confer title and once the
survey records under the Land Revenue Code came into force, the
matriz records lost their value, since in terms of Section 107 of the
Land Revenue Code, once the presumption under Section 105 is
available from the records prepared under this Code, the presumption,
if any, arising under the old existing records ceases to have any value.
None of the witnesses of the appellants say that the possession of the
acquired land was taken from the appellants. However, it is
specifically stated by respondent no. 2 in his written statement as
well as oral evidence that the possession of the acquired land was
taken from him.
15.
The reference Court has discussed the oral evidence
produced by the parties. A perusal of the oral evidence produced by
the appellants reveal that the same cannot advance the case of the
appellants. In view of the evidence produced by the respondent no. 2
9
on record and mainly on account of the sale deed dated 3/9/1969 and
the promulgated survey records in favour of the respondent no. 2, I
am of the considered view that it is the respondent no. 2 only who is
entitled to receive the entire compensation deposited in reference
Court with regard to the acquired land. I am, therefore, of the view
that the impudent judgment and award is in accordance with the
settled principles of law warranting no interference.
16.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
U. V. BAKRE, J.
AP/-
No comments:
Post a Comment