JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Talaulikar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Naik, learned counsel for legal representatives of deceased respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 04/08/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (III), Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.39/1994. 3. An area of 94,250 square metres of land from survey no. 7711 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 Rs. 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. 7711. 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. 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 VW 1. 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 Rs. 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. 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. 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 his 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 subdivisions. 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. 1 and XIV in respect of Survey no. 77/1 shows the name of Mr. Vinodkumar 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. Vinodkumar 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 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. Appeal dismissed.