A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The provision of Section 20 makes it mandatory for the Reference Court to issue notice to the Applicant and to any other persons who are interested in objecting to the compensation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

( VALMIKI MENEZES J.)

WRIT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2026

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 2026

THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE            … PETITIONER

VERSUS

TEOFILO J. MONTEIRO                                                                 … RESPONDENT

  1. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The provision of Section 20 makes it mandatory for the Reference Court to issue notice to the Applicant and to any other persons who are interested in objecting to the compensation.

Held:- The Applicant has raised objections to the quantum of compensation offered under the Award and the basis of his claim to this compensation is a title of Tenancy. This title of Tenancy has been claimed against the Landlord or original occupants of the acquired land i.e. the Communidade of Bambolim. Thus, the Communidade of Bambolim also would be a necessary party to this reference in terms of Clause (b) of Section 20 of the Act.

The Clause (c) of Section 20 mandates that the Reference Court shall also issue notice, where the objection relates to the quantum of compensation, to the Collector dealing with the acquisition of land; in this case, an Award was passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Collectorate, North Goa, Panaji, who would necessarily have to be impleaded as a party in terms of the Clause (c) of Section 20. There is no option to the Reference Court to avoid notice to these parties, and more so to the Collector, who would be the only person in a position to lead evidence or to assist the Court in the inquiry to arrive at the true market value of the land. (Para 8, 9 and 10).

  1. Evidence Act – If a witness is competent to depose and certain facts are within his knowledge, he cannot be precluded from deposing only on the basis that he has health issues.

Held:- On an Application seeking adjournment on grounds of a medical certificate of a witness, stating he was unwell, the District Court seems to have directed that the witness should be changed and a healthy witness be examined. These reasons for directing a change of witness are completely untenable at law and dehores the Evidence Act. If a witness is competent to depose and certain facts are within his knowledge, he cannot be precluded from deposing only on the basis that he has health issues. There may be a delay in the proceedings because he was unwell, but that cannot be a justification to deny the party seeking to examine that witness, to record evidence of that witness which may be relevant. For this reason, the Impugned order dated 16.01.2026 must be set aside. (Para 16)

FACTS

The Writ Petition No. 128/2026 assailing order dated 18.09.2025 passed on an application for impleadment of the parties in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011by the Adhoc-District Judge-2, North Goa at Merces. Whereas the Writ Petition No. 127/2026 challenges order dated 16.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 in Land Acquisition Case No. 9/2011.

Mr. TEOFILO J. MONTEIRO is arrayed as Applicant before the Reference Court, and claims title to the acquired land on the basis of a claim of Agricultural Tenancy under the Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy  Act, 1964. After receipt of the reference, the Reference Court has impleaded Sainik Welfare Department as a sole Respondent, on the premise that the land has been acquired for the use of the Petitioner herein.

  1. The Petitioner herein moved an application seeking impleadment of the Communidade of Bambolim, whose name is in the occupants column of the Survey Records of the acquired land (Survey No. 92/1 (part) of village Bambolim) and also sought impleadment of the Communidade of Bambolim, CPWD (the department that has constructed a structure on another part of Survey No. 92/1 in pursuance of an earlier acquisition) and the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector, who had instituted the Acquisition Proceedings and passed an Award with respect to the acquired land. Reference Court dismissed application for impleadment – reason – that the proceeding is with respect to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the behest of the Mr. Teofilo Monteiro, and the parties sought to be impleaded by the Petitioner have nothing to do with the reference.

To download judgment click link:-

Land Acqusition Act Secretary Department of Sainik Welfare Vs. Teofilo J. Monteiro

Leave a comment