Judgment : Heard Shri M.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri V. Braganza, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25/07/2003 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1998 whereby a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') came to be disposed of directing that the compensation awarded be paid to the respondents no.1 & 2. 3. An area of 300 square metres from the property surveyed under no.72/5 situated in the village Panchawadi of Ponda Taluka came to be acquired under the said Act pursuant to a notification published under Section 4 of the said Act in the Official Gazette dated 12/12/1991. In view of the rival claim put up for the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer whilst passing an award under Section 11 of the said Act the dispute was referred to the learned District Judge under Section 30 of the said Act. 4. After hearing the parties and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and award dated 25/07/2003, the learned District Court disposed of the said reference directing that the compensation be paid to the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5. Shri M.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the respondents no.1 & 2 have failed to establish that the land acquired was part and parcel of the property claimed by the said respondents known as “Lacumugoracodil” described in the Land Registration Office under No.20200 and inscribed in Taluka Revenue Office under matriz No.781 and 782. The learned Counsel further pointed out that though the property surveyed under no.109/1 admeasures an area of more than 2 lacs square metres, the said respondents are claiming only an area of 13,300 square metres. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the said respondents have failed to adduce any evidence to establish the portion of the said property claimed by them surveyed under no.109/1. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the claim of the appellants is solely on the basis of the survey records which according to him has been duly promulgated in the name of some of the appellants and also the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the claim of the appellants is solely on the basis of the survey records which according to him has been duly promulgated in the name of some of the appellants and also the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of the entries in the survey records, the presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code is to be drawn in favour of the persons in whose name the survey records stand and as such the learned Judge has erroneously passed the impugned judgment directing that the compensation be paid only to the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel has further taken me through the evidence of RW1 and RW2 and pointed out that there are specific averments made in the deposition of the said witnesses to establish that the property which is the subject matter of the acquisition forms part and parcel of the property belonging to the appellants. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and pointed out that there is no evidence adduced by the said respondents to substantiate their claim that the property claimed by the said respondents forms the part of the property which is subject matter of the acquisition. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the compensation has to be paid to the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. The learned Counsel further points out that there is a civil suit pending final adjudication in respect of the whole property wherein some of the parties in the said proceedings are also parties. The learned Counsel further points out that the subject matter of the said suit is entire property which would otherwise also include acquired portion of the land. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Shri V. Braganza, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the said respondents have duly established their case as put up in the statement of claim before the Reference Court. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Shri V. Braganza, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the said respondents have duly established their case as put up in the statement of claim before the Reference Court. The learned Counsel further points out that the suit filed by the appellants has already been dismissed but he however does not dispute that the appeal preferred by the appellants is pending adjudication before the learned District Judge. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the subject matter of the present acquisition is only an area of 300 square metres and as such the question of awarding any compensation in the present proceedings does not arise. The learned Counsel as such submits that the above appeal deserves to be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also gone through the pleadings and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. On the basis of the records as well as the submissions of the learned Counsel, the following point for determination arises in the present appeal: POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to direct that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer be paid to the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. 8. On perusal of the evidence of AW1, I find that the deponent has clearly stated in the examination in chief the fact that the subject matter of the property which has been acquired under Survey No.72/5 forms part and parcel of the property belonging to the said respondents and registered in the Land Registration Office under No.20200. The said witness has further stated that the property is also inscribed in the matriz records under no.781 and 782. The said witness has further pointed out that the property forms part and parcel of the portion of the property surveyed under no.109/1, 72/5 and 104/1 and the specific portions of said survey numbers have also been disclosed. In the cross-examination of the said witness, I find there is no appreciable challenge to the said statement of AW1. The said witness has further pointed out that the property forms part and parcel of the portion of the property surveyed under no.109/1, 72/5 and 104/1 and the specific portions of said survey numbers have also been disclosed. In the cross-examination of the said witness, I find there is no appreciable challenge to the said statement of AW1. On perusal of the evidence of AW2 the surveyor has categorically stated in the examination in chief that he has identified the property at loco and according to him on the basis of such identification the boundaries shown in the land registration office of the land acquired comes within the said property. I find no challenge to the said statement but merely vague denials. 9. On the other hand, the appellants have failed to adduce any evidence of any expert to substantiate their claim that the property belongs to the appellants. Be that as it may, it is also to be noted that in the examination in chief there is no matriz number disclosed by the appellants to claim that the property acquired forms part and parcel of their property. As such, I find that the Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the amounts awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is to be paid to the respondents no.1 & 2 herein. The learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of AW1 and AW2 and in fact on perusal of the plan produced by the said witness, he has clearly identified the boundary as mentioned in the Land Registration Office under No. 20200. Taking all this into consideration, I find that no case is made out by the appellants which calls for any interference in the impugned judgment directing payment of compensation of respondents no.1 & 2. The appellants have not produced any title documents in support of their claim. Besides, the survey records also stand in the name of the respondents no.1 & 2. It is well settled that survey records are not documents of title. The appellants have also failed to show that any portion in the acquired portion of land belongs to them. The respondents no.1 & 2 on the other hand have produced the title documents and identified the property by examining AW2. 10. It is well settled that survey records are not documents of title. The appellants have also failed to show that any portion in the acquired portion of land belongs to them. The respondents no.1 & 2 on the other hand have produced the title documents and identified the property by examining AW2. 10. With regard to the contention of Shri M.S. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants to the effect that the respondents no.1 & 2 are claiming only an area of 13,300 square metres from the property surveyed under no.109/1 when according to him the area of the property mentioned therein is much more, I find that the subject matter of the land acquired in the present case is not part of the property surveyed under no.109/1. But however, it is made clear that the findings arrived at in the present proceedings are restricted to the land acquired in the present case. Any rival contentions with regard to the other portion of the property would be a matter to be decided on its own merits by an appropriate Court in accordance with law. 11. Subject to the above, I find that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.