Judgment 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 26/08/2005, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court -II, of South Goa, At Margao, (Reference Court) in Land Acquisition Case No. 19/2004. 2. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“L.A. Act”, for short), published in the Official Gazette dated 23/11/2000, land was acquired from Verna-Loutolim villages for expansion of Industrial Estate and this included an area of 3725 square metres from survey holding no. 264/1 of Loutolim village. By Award dated 29/09/2003, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded compensation of Rs. 77,030/-for the said acquired land. As there was dispute regarding the ownership of the acquired land, a reference was made under section 30 of the L.A. Act which gave rise to the said L.A. Case no. 19/2004. 3. The appellant, in its written statement, filed before the Reference Court, claimed that the land in question constitutes as part of the private village of the Communidade of Loutolim, as stands declared in terms of Diploma Legislativo No. 2070 dated 15/04/1961 and the entire land in the said village stands declared to be absolute private property of the Communidade. The Appellant further alleged, in its written statement, that the other parties are neither Lessees nor tenants and have no right to the said property. According to the Appellant, the respondents fraudulently claimed benefits under the Tenancy Act and obtained purchase certificate, from the appointed Revenue Court, as against the objections raised by the Appellant and the said exercise is not binding on it. 4. The respondents, in their written statement, alleged that they are legal representatives of late Krishna Gaude Rassaikar, who was the original tenant of the paddy field known as “Khongal” admeasuring 4150 square metres bearing survey no. 264/1 of Loutolim Village, having declared as such by Mamlatdar of Salcete, vide Judgment and Order passed in case No. JM-I/TNC/69/2001. The respondents further stated that subsequently the said property has been purchased by them from the Communidade of Loutolim under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, through the Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao and Purchase Sanad, bearing no. JM-III/TNC/Pur/Loutolim/ 385/2000 dated 23/05/2001, has been issued by the Mamlatdar. The respondents further stated that subsequently the said property has been purchased by them from the Communidade of Loutolim under the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, through the Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao and Purchase Sanad, bearing no. JM-III/TNC/Pur/Loutolim/ 385/2000 dated 23/05/2001, has been issued by the Mamlatdar. The respondents further alleged that the said land vests in them as from the tiller's day, free from all encumbrances under section 18C of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act and hence the entire compensation has to be paid to them. 5. The appellant examined its attorney, namely Shri Francisco Monteiro as AW-1 and two more witnesses namely Shri Ajit Kuwelkar as AW-2 and Shri S.R. Rane, the Inspector of Survey and Records, as AW-3. The respondents examined the Respondent no. 1 as RW-1 and he produced on record the Purchase Certificate as Exhibit 25. 6. The learned Reference Court, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that the Purchase Certificate at Exhibit 25 proves that Krishna Gawde Rassaikar, who was tenant of the acquired land, has purchased the said land under the provisions of Agricultural Tenancy Act and has become owner of the acquired land. The Reference Court found that the appellant had not produced any document to show its ownership over the acquired land, as on the date of acquisition. The Reference Court found that the Purchase Certificate has not been challenged by the appellant due to which the said purchase has become final. The respondents, therefore, have been held to be entitled to receive the entire compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land, along with interest. 7. Heard Shri P. Talaulikar, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned advocate for the respondents. 8. Perused the record and proceedings. 9. Admittedly, the appellant was previously the owner of the acquired land. The statement of RW-1, Shri Ramdas Krishna Gaude, made in his Affidavit-in-evidence, that he and other respondents are the legal representatives of late Krishna Gawde Rassaikar, has not been denied. RW6 1, who is the respondent no.1 has produced on record the Purchase Certificate, which has been issued by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete in Case No. JM-III/TNC/Pur/Loutolim/ 385/2000, under Sub-Section (1) of section 18(H) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 in favour of Shri Krishna Guno Rasoikar, as Exhibit 25. RW6 1, who is the respondent no.1 has produced on record the Purchase Certificate, which has been issued by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete in Case No. JM-III/TNC/Pur/Loutolim/ 385/2000, under Sub-Section (1) of section 18(H) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 in favour of Shri Krishna Guno Rasoikar, as Exhibit 25. In this certificate, it has been stated that the said Krishna Guno Rasoikar is the tenant of land bearing survey no. 264 /1 of Loutolim village, which land belongs to the Commundade of Loutolim and has deposited Rs. 1660/-under the provisions of section 18E of Agricultural Tenancy Act as the lumpsum of the purchase price in respect of the said land. It has been certified that the said Krishna Guno Rasoikar shall be deemed to be the purchaser of the said land. 10. In the case of “The Goa, Daman and Diu Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Shri Vassu Jaidev Gaonkar” [2001(2) Goa L.T. 63], the learned Single Judge of this High Court has held as follows:- “As agricultural tenants were absolute owners as deemed purchasers on 20th April, 1976, prior to commencement of acquisition proceedings on 02/04/77, tenants are entitled to entire compensation as well as enhancement, excluding deemed purchase price which goes to the original owner of the land.” 11. In the case of “Communidade of Colvale and others v/s. Benjamin Pereira” [2005(2) GLR 431], a Division Bench of this Court has held that if a certificate of purchase is given by a competent authority under the Act, it could be safely be presumed that it was given to person, who was tenant in respect of the property, who is deemed to have been purchaser. 12. The Purchase Certificate at Exhibit 25 was never challenged by the Appellant before the competent Authority and the same has attained finality. 13. It is therefore clear that, by virtue of the purchase Certificate, the respondents are the deemed owners of the property bearing survey no. 264/1 of Village Loutolim, from which an area of 3725 square metres has been acquired. The respondents are therefore entitled to receive the entire compensation. 14. The impugned Judgment and Order is therefore in accordance with the settled principles of law and no interference is called for. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.