Allowed

Kusta Naik Gaonkar (Dec) Thr. Lrs., v. Mallikarjun Devasthan Shrishtal, Thr. Its Att., Satish Ganaba Dessai and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2021WP/1057/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dispute over land acquisition compensation apportionment, the High Court stayed reference proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act pending the final adjudication of a tenancy issue pending before authorities under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, relying on prior precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing the respondent to lead further evidence is set aside; proceedings under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are stayed till the tenancy issue is finally decided.

Kusta Naik Gaonkar (Dec) Thr. Lrs., Vs Mallikarjun Devasthan… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

29- WP NO.1057 OF 2019

¶2

Aura

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition NO. 1057 of 2019

¶4

Shiva Kusta Naik Gaonkar (since deceased) through Lrs: 1. Shri Anand Fulu Gayek alis Anand Filu Gaee, s/o late Fulu Gayek, age 54 years, agriculturist, 2. Shri. Ajit Anand Gayek alias Ajit Anand Gaee, s/o Shri Anand Gaee age 28 years, service 3. Shri Amol Anand Gyaek alias Amol Ananda Gaee, s/o Shri Anand Gayek, age 30 years, service All resident of H. NO.53, Mastimol, Petitioners Xeller, Canacona Goa. Versus 1.Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan Shrishtal, Through its attorney Satish Ganaba Dessi, Son of Ganaba Dessai, Service, Age 54 years, R/o H. NO.376, Mokod, Shrishtal, Canacona Goa. And ors. 2. Shiva Vasudev Deshmukh, s/o Vasudev Deshmukh, age 32 years, service, r/o Khalvadem, Canacona, Goa.(LR of party Respondents no.2 brought record.(as per ord 17.4.2017)

¶5

Mr. Rohan Rama Desai, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Parag G. Wagle, Advocate for the Respondent s.

¶6

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J DATED: 14th September, 2021

¶7

ORAL ORDER

¶8

1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 1/11/2019 passed by the Court of District Judge, South

¶9

Page 1 of 5 14th Sept.2021

¶10

29- WP NO.1057 OF 2019

¶11

Goa, Margao, whereby an application filed by the respondents for
leading further evidence in a reference proceeding has been
allowed.

¶12

2. The background in which the said application was moved is that there is a dispute raised as regards apportionment of compensation for acquisition of land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute under section 30 of the said Act to the District Court and it is in the said proceedings that the respondent desired to lead evidence in support of its contentions.

¶13

3. The petitioners claim to be tenants of the property that was acquired. It is their contention that the issue regarding their tenancy is already pending before the competent authorities under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act 1964 and till such time that the said issue is settled, the reference proceedings before the Court below ought to be stayed and that the application moved by the respondents for leading further evidence ought not to have been allowed.

¶14

4. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioners had brought to the notice of the Court below that a Revision application moved under the provisions of the aforesaid Act

¶15

Page 2 of 5 14th Sept.2021

¶16

29- WP NO.1057 OF 2019

¶17

against the orders of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector
had been dismissed as withdrawn and that they had moved an
application for restoration of the same with an application for
condonation of delay. The concerned Court had rejected the
application for condonation of delay and that Writ Petition
No.127 of 2017, challenging the said order was pending before
this Court. In the impugned order, the Court below took note of
the said contention and allowed the application of the
respondent, observing that in such a situation the recording of the
evidence could be completed and, perhaps, the Court below
would not be in a position to finally decide the reference till the
aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court.

¶18

5. Writ Petition No.127 of 2017 filed by the petitioners has been allowed today by a separate Judgment and the Revision application has been restored for consideration on merits. Therefore, the issue of tenancy raised by the petitioners is pending consideration before the competent Tribunal/authority in the revision application.

¶19

6. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court to the Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalyan Madgaonkar Vs. Shri Dattaram Shiva Harmalkar (since deceased through Lrs)

¶20

Page 3 of 5 14th Sept.2021

¶21

29- WP NO.1057 OF 2019

¶22

2010 3 ALLMR 629, wherein it has been held in the context of
the issue of tenancy being referred to the competent authority
that when the said issue is decided by the Mamlatdar i.e. the
original authority under the provisions of the relevant statute, the
order of the Mamlatdar is subject to further challenges as available
in law.

¶23

7. In another Judgment in the case of Dossibai Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy Vs. P.M. Bharucha – (1958) 60 BOMLR 1208 , a Division Bench of this Court in the context of apportionment of compensation when an issue of tenancy is raised, has held that different methods of apportionment of compensation have to be applied when the amount of compensation is to be distributed between the landlord and the tenant. On this basis, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the unless and until the issue of tenancy is finally settled, the proceedings pending before the Reference Court under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act ought to be kept in abeyance.

¶24

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute the position of law as laid down in the aforementioned judgments of this Court on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance.

¶25

Page 4 of 5 14th Sept.2021

¶26

29- WP NO.1057 OF 2019

¶27

9. This Court is also of the opinion that until the issue of tenancy is finally put to rest, the proceedings before the Court below under section 30 of the said Act would have to be kept in abeyance, as the finality of the issue of tenancy would have a direct impact on the claim of apportionment of compensation raised by the rival parties.

¶28

10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, it is directed that the proceedings in the Court below arising out of reference made under section 30 of the aforesaid Act shall remain stayed till the issue of tenancy is finally decided upon termination of challenges that may be raised against the order of the Mamlatdar.

¶29

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶30

Page 5 of 5 14th Sept.2021

Kusta Naik Gaonkar (Dec) Thr. Lrs., v. Mallikarjun Devasthan Shrishtal, Thr. Its Att., Satish Ganaba Dessai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusta Naik Gaonkar (Dec) Thr. Lrs., v. Mallikarjun Devasthan Shrishtal, Thr. Its Att., Satish Ganaba Dessai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Krishna Gaonkar and Anr. Vs Harichandra Radya Gaonkar and 3 Ors.

Suraj Gad and Anr. Vs Dr. Thomas Paul Dsouza and 2 Ors.

Shree Mallikarjuna Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Aut. Rep., Bhushan Honavarkar Vs Azghar Khan

Prof. Maria Elsa Noronha Wolfango De Silva (Deceased) through Lrs. Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereir Vs Ricardina Emilia Guedes De Almeida De Silva Noronha (Deceased) through Lrs. and 6 Ors.

Sara Mazarello E Fernandes and Anr., Vs Timothy Pereira and 2 Ors.

Edc Limited, through Its Manager., Vs Goa Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., and 4 Ors.