Judgment : Both the above appeals, filed against the Judgment and Award dated 9/7/2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Margao (reference Court, for short), respectively in Land Acquisition Cases No. 303/1981 and 304/1981, are being disposed of by this common judgment as the subject matter concerned in both is out of the same property and the parties are also the same. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of both the said Land Acquisitions Cases. 3. Facts giving rise to the appeals, in short, are as under: Government had acquired land for rehabilitation programme of Salaulim Irrigation Project at Porttem Village of Taluka Sanguem. Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO, for short) on 21/11/1978. During the acquisition proceedings, the acquired land was demarcated and divided into separate plots and specific numbers were given to those plots since at the relevant time there was no survey conducted by the survey department under the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. The subject matter of the present appeals are plots no. 196, 197, 198 and 199. 4. Area of the acquired plots no. 196, 197 and 198 is 26,325 square metres. Total compensation of Rs. 23,393.19/- was awarded for these plots. Parties no. 1(a) to 1(e) had put up the claim as owners of these plots before the SLAO. Party no. 2 had also laid claim as owner thereof. Party no. 5 had also claimed entire compensation in respect of these plots, as owner thereof. Party no. 3(since deceased) had claimed to be tenant and deemed owner of plots no. 196 and 197 whereas Party no. 4 had claimed tenancy and deemed ownership in respect of plot no. 198. Being tenant of the acquired land bearing plots no. 196 and 197, as 50% compensation towards land and as further compensation towards acquired trees, an amount of Rs. 9,705.03/- was paid by the SLAO to Party No. 3 (since deceased). Similarly, being tenant of plot no. 198, as 50% compensation towards land, an amount of Rs. 741.75/- was paid to Party no. 4. Compensation amount which remained to be paid and which was deposited before the District Court is Rs. 12,946.41/-. Since there was dispute between Parties no. 1(a) to 1 (e) and Party no. 3 regarding the house and well situated in plot no. 198, as 50% compensation towards land, an amount of Rs. 741.75/- was paid to Party no. 4. Compensation amount which remained to be paid and which was deposited before the District Court is Rs. 12,946.41/-. Since there was dispute between Parties no. 1(a) to 1 (e) and Party no. 3 regarding the house and well situated in plot no. 197 and since there was dispute amongst all the interested parties regarding apportionment of remaining compensation, the SLAO made reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short). Land Acquisition Case No. 303/1981 pertained to said plots no. 196, 197 and 198 and to the said balance compensation amount of Rs. 12,946.41/-. 5. The area of acquired plot no. 199 is 3,46,500 square metres. Total compensation awarded by SLAO, in respect of this plot, is Rs. 73,511.91/-. An amount of Rs. 172.50/-was awarded as compensation for structure. Since there was dispute amongst Parties no. 1(a) to 1(e), Party no. 2 and Party no. 5 regarding compensation of Rs. 73,339.41/-, reference under section 30 of the L. A. Act was made. As seen from the Award of SLAO and the reference made by him, Parties no. 3 and 4 were not interested in this plot and compensation thereof. Land Acquisition Case No. 304/1981 pertained to the said plot no. 199 and compensation of Rs. 73,339.41/-. 6. In their written statement filed in both the cases, the Parties no. 1(a) to 1(e) claimed that the acquired land is known as “Govleavadimola” or “Acdemateamola” situated at Vadem of Sanguem Taluka, registered in the Land Registration Office under no. 25992 and in the Land Revenue Office under Matriz no. 717 and that from the time of its purchase, the said property is openly and peacefully enjoyed by their father who was administering and managing the same. It was further alleged that the said property is being enjoyed by them since last more than 10 years. According to them, plots no. 196, 197, and 198 comprises of an area of 26,325 square metres and the plot no. 199 admeasures 3,46,500 square metres and in plots no. 196, 197 and 198 there are two houses, one of them ruined, well, coconut trees, and cashew trees owned, enjoyed and possessed by the said parties. It is further alleged that in the said property, bearing plots no. 199 admeasures 3,46,500 square metres and in plots no. 196, 197 and 198 there are two houses, one of them ruined, well, coconut trees, and cashew trees owned, enjoyed and possessed by the said parties. It is further alleged that in the said property, bearing plots no. 196, 197 and 198, two houses were constructed by father of said parties, out of which, one is presently occupied by the legal representatives of deceased Party no. 3, namely Pascoal Fernandes and the other house was occupied by one Joao Fernandes, which is in ruins. It is further claimed that the above persons were permitted to reside therein on humanitarian grounds and they have no right to the said plots. They further stated that the said plots were never used by Party no. 2 for extracting any iron ore or manganese ore, as claimed by him. They stated that the Parties no. 3 and 4 laid fictitious claims before the SLAO stating that the plots no. 196, 197 and 198 belong to Comunidade and that they are in possession of the same. They stated that the Parties no. 2, 3 and 4 and 5 have no right to any of the plots no. 196, 197, 198 and 199. 7. Party no. 2, namely Tukaram Parkar, in his written statement filed in both the cases, alleged that the acquired land is known as “Margamodil Dongor”, situated at Vadem, of Sanguem Taluka and the same was leased to him by the Government under Lease Deed dated 21/4/1952 for an unlimited period at the first instance and subsequently, the said period was modified to 20 years by order dated 7/4/1981. He further alleged that the said lease was for extraction of iron and manganese ore and as a result of the same, he derived the right to develop the said land and built houses, constructed well etc. for the benefit of workers under the Mines Act. He stated that he also planted fruit bearing trees which started yielding. According to him, he incurred heavy expenses for developing the said land and therefore, he is entitled to receive the compensation. 8. In its written statement, filed in both cases, the Party no. for the benefit of workers under the Mines Act. He stated that he also planted fruit bearing trees which started yielding. According to him, he incurred heavy expenses for developing the said land and therefore, he is entitled to receive the compensation. 8. In its written statement, filed in both cases, the Party no. 5 claimed that all the four plots belong exclusively to it as per 'Registo de Cadastro' of the said comunidade and Matriz Predial of Sanguem Taluka and therefore, the said Comunidade is entitled to receive the entire compensation. 9. In their written statement, filed in L. A. C. No. 303/1981, the Parties no. 3(a) to 3(k) and 4 claimed that the entire compensation in respect of plots no.196 and 197 should be apportioned in favour of legal heirs of Party no. 3, whereas, the entire compensation in respect of plot no. 198 should be apportioned in favour of Party no. 4. They alleged that they were in exclusive possession of the said plots and they carried out cultivation of cashew trees, bamboo etc., in the same. They stated that in plots no. 196 and 197, Pascoal Fernandes carried out all the developments and also built house, dug well, etc. in the said land whereas in plot no. 198, all improvements and cultivation were done by Delfino Fernandes. The Parties no. 3 and 4 claimed adverse possession for more than 12 years. 10. In L. A. C. No. 304/1981, which was originally registered as L. A. C. No. 09/1978, the parties no. 3 and 4 filed an application dated 20/4/1978, before the reference Court, praying therein to add them as parties to the said case. Parties no. 1(a) to 1(e) and Party no. 2 vehemently opposed the application. But, by order dated 30/10/1985, the learned reference Court allowed the said application and thus the Parties no. 3 and 4 got impleaded as parties to this case. 11. Party no. 3 or his legal representatives did no file any statement of claim in said L. A. C. NO. 304/1981, claiming any compensation. 12. Party no. 4, in his written statement filed in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, alleged that the cultivation of cashew trees and bamboo and other plantation in the said plot no. 199 was done by him and was also enjoyed by him and hence, he is entitled for entire compensation. 13. 304/1981, claiming any compensation. 12. Party no. 4, in his written statement filed in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, alleged that the cultivation of cashew trees and bamboo and other plantation in the said plot no. 199 was done by him and was also enjoyed by him and hence, he is entitled for entire compensation. 13. Accordingly, issues were framed in both the Land Acquisition Cases as per the claims of all the parties. Common evidence was led by the parties in both the cases, though the depositions of witnesses have been separately tied in both the cases. The Party no. 1(b), on behalf of Party no. 1(c), as his power of attorney holder and on his own behalf examined himself as AW.1. Parties no. 1(a) to 1(e) examined their father namely Sadashiv Govind P. Dessai, as AW.2. AW.2 produced various documents. Parties no. 1(a) to 1(e) then examined one shri Vishnu Chiplunkar as AW.3. Party no. 2 (d) examined himself as AW.4 and he produced a copy of the lease deed and other documents and examined another witness, namely, Mohan Narvenkar as P2.-2. Parties no. 3 and 4 examined the Party no. 3(b) i.e. party no. 4 (Delfino Fernandes) as P. No-3. The Party no. 5 did not examine any witness. 14. Upon analysis of the entire evidence on record in both the cases, the learned reference court came to the conclusion that the Parties no. 3(a) to 3(k), as legal heirs of original Party no. 3 are entitled to receive compensation in respect of plots no. 196 and 197, whereas, Party no. 4 is entitled to receive compensation in respect of plot no. 198, together with interest accrued thereon till the date of Award. Insofar as plot no.199 is concerned, learned reference Court held that the Parties no. 3(a) to 3(k) and Party no. 4 are entitled to receive the entire compensation together with interest accrued thereon till the date of Award. It has been held that no other party is entitled to receive any compensation. The Parties no.1(a), 1(b), 1(c.i) to 1(c.iv), 1(d) and 1(e) are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award in both the cases and they have filed both the above appeals. 15. The legal representatives of deceased Party no. 2 and Party no. It has been held that no other party is entitled to receive any compensation. The Parties no.1(a), 1(b), 1(c.i) to 1(c.iv), 1(d) and 1(e) are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award in both the cases and they have filed both the above appeals. 15. The legal representatives of deceased Party no. 2 and Party no. 5 have not challenged the judgment and award in both the cases and in the present appeals also they have chosen to remain absent. Hence, first of all, the said Parties no. 2(a) to 2(i) and Party no. 5 are not entitled to receive any compensation, in respect of plots no. 196 to 199. The contest is between the Parties no.1(a), 1(b), 1(c.i) to 1(c.iv), 1(d) and 1(e) [hereinafter referred to as Party no. 1] on one side and the legal representatives of the deceased Party no. 3 and Party no. 4 [hereinafter referred to as Parties no. 3 and 4] on the other side. 16. Heard learned Counsel for both the contesting parties. 17. Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Party no.1 submitted that AW.2 has produced on record the title documents and there is no denial to the fact that the said documents pertain to the same property comprising the said acquired plots. He, therefore, submitted that there is no question of identification of the property. He further submitted that though at one place AW.1 has stated that they own and possess in all 22 properties in Sanguem Taluka of which some of the properties have been acquired by the Government and that the properties are surveyed under nos.162 to 195, 200 to 202, 239 to 241, 347 to 349 and 354, thereby omitting the plots no.196 to 199, however, on the next page AW.1 has included plots no. 196 and 198. According to the learned counsel, evidence should not be read in piece-meal and the entire evidence of AW.1 has to be read as a whole. He pointed out from the cross- examination of AW.1 that the Parties no. 3 and 4 have not denied that the documents pertain to the same property, but they only say that AW.1 has managed to create the said documents. He pointed out from the cross- examination of AW.1 that the Parties no. 3 and 4 have not denied that the documents pertain to the same property, but they only say that AW.1 has managed to create the said documents. Learned counsel pointed out from the impugned judgment that the reference Court has repeatedly observed that the property claimed by Party no.1 is situated at Vadem of Curdi village, whereas, the property which is acquired is situated at Porttem village. According to learned Counsel, this is one of main grounds for rejecting the claim of Party no. 1. He pointed out from the evidence of Party no. 4 that he himself has stated that the acquired plots are situated at Vadem of Porttem. Learned Counsel contended that at the most the Parties no. 3 and 4 had established that they were in permissive user of the house existing in the acquired land. According to the learned Counsel, however, that cannot be held to be possession of the acquired land. He further submitted that Parties no. 3 and 4 had not claimed compensation in respect of plot no. 199 before the SLAO and they were not parties to the reference, under section 30 of the L. A. Act, made by SLAO in respect of plot no. 199. He pointed out that the Parties no. 3 and 4 had filed application for adding them as parties and after being allowed to be parties in L.A.C. 304/1981, only party no. 4 had filed statement of claim before the reference Court and had stepped into the witness box, in spite of which compensation has been ordered to be paid to the legal representatives of Party no. 3 also along with Party no. 4 in L.A.C. 304/1981 in respect of plot no. 199. Learned Counsel submitted that reference Court had no power to add parties to the reference. He pointed out that in the memo of appeal, the order adding the Parties no. 3 and 4 to the L. A. C. No. 304/1981, has been challenged. He relied upon the case of “Digambars/o Sambaji Pued Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others” reported in [2008 (3) ALL MR 801] in support of his contention that a party cannot be impleaded before the reference Court. He also relied upon “ShriDattaram Deu Desai and Others. Vs. 3 and 4 to the L. A. C. No. 304/1981, has been challenged. He relied upon the case of “Digambars/o Sambaji Pued Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others” reported in [2008 (3) ALL MR 801] in support of his contention that a party cannot be impleaded before the reference Court. He also relied upon “ShriDattaram Deu Desai and Others. Vs. Shri Nirakar Devasthan of Palolem through its Attorney & others “[ 2000 (2) Bom.C.R. 100 ]. He further submitted that there are two houses in plot no. 197 and Party no. 3 was permitted by the Party no.1 to reside in one of the houses. He further pointed out that the SLAO has paid 50% of the compensation to Parties no. 3 and 4 on the ground that they are tenants but before the reference Court the said Parties no. 3 and 4 have claimed compensation by way of adverse possession. He submitted that the question of admission by Party no.1 of tenancy of Parties no. 3 and 4 does not arise since the said Parties no. 3 and 4 had not at all claimed tenancy, in the Reference Cases. He pointed out that the Parties no. 3 and 4 have not produced any documents and have taken inconsistent pleas. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of AW.1 and AW.2 sufficiently proves the identification of the acquired land vis-a-vis their property and there is corroboration from AW.3. He submitted that in terms of 3rd Proviso to Section 31 of the L. A. Act, the Party no. 1 can recover the amount paid to Parties no. 3 and 4, if he is held to be entitled to the same. He, therefore, submitted that though 50% amount has been paid to Parties no. 3 and 4, however, since now the Party no.1 has proved the title and possession, they are entitled to recover the said amount. He submitted that the property which was subject matter of acquisition was in the name of grandmother of the deceased Party no.1(a) and she gifted it to his brothers namely Rajendra and Jaganath. He submitted that AW.1 and Aw.2 have produced various documents of title and possession and have also produced house tax receipts. He therefore urged that the appeals be allowed and entire compensation be ordered to be paid to the Party No. 1. 18. On the other hand, Mr. He submitted that AW.1 and Aw.2 have produced various documents of title and possession and have also produced house tax receipts. He therefore urged that the appeals be allowed and entire compensation be ordered to be paid to the Party No. 1. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Parties no. 3 and 4, submitted that upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the reference Court concluded that the Parties no. 3 and 4 were in possession of the land which was acquired. He pointed out that the Party no.1 admitted that 50% of the compensation be awarded to Parties no. 3 and 4. He submitted that the claim of title made by the Party no.1 was not established on account of inconsistent pleas. He submitted that the Party no.1 had produced before the SLAO a partition deed, but before the reference Court they produced some other documents. He submitted that 50% of the compensation which has been already paid to Parties no. 3 and 4 is not subject matter of the present cases. He submitted that since the Parties no. 3 and 4 have proved their possession and further since the Party no.1 has failed to prove better title, no interference is called for with the impugned judgments. He relied upon the judgment in the case of “Manche Anege Akue Vs. Manche Kojo Ababio IV” reported in A.I.R. 1927 Privy Council 262, wherein it has been held that when the land taken by the Government was in exclusive use and occupation of the respondent, the appellant must, in order to succeed, establish that he has a better title than the respondent. 19. I have gone through the entire material on record in light of the submissions made by both the parties. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the parties. 20. The question that arises for determination is as to which of the contesting parties are entitled to receive the compensation?. 21. Admittedly, in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, pertaining to plot no. 199, party no. 3 had not claimed any compensation. In the written statement as well as in the final written submissions filed by Parties no. 3 and 4, the compensation in respect of the plot no. 199 was claimed only by Party no. 4. 21. Admittedly, in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, pertaining to plot no. 199, party no. 3 had not claimed any compensation. In the written statement as well as in the final written submissions filed by Parties no. 3 and 4, the compensation in respect of the plot no. 199 was claimed only by Party no. 4. However, in the impugned judgment, passed in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, the learned reference Court has held that the Party No. 3 through Legal Representatives and Party No. 4 are entitled to receive the entire compensation regarding plot no. 199, together with interest accrued thereon. The impugned Judgment, therefore, is not sustainable. 22. Indisputably, initially, Parties no. 3 and 4 were not parties to the reference which was registered as L. A. C. 09/1978/L. A. C. No. 304/1981. The Award of the SLAO concerning the said acquisition is produced by Party no. 3 as Exhibit P.3/A, in both the cases. This Award reveals that the Party no. 3 had claimed to be tenant of plots no. 196 and 197 whereas Party no. 4 had claimed to be tenant of plot no. 198. Neither the Party no. 3 nor the Party no. 4 had claimed any right to plot no. 199. Accordingly, the reference under Section 30 of the L. A. Act, made by SLAO, in respect of said plot no. 199, did not include the Parties no. 3 and 4 as interested parties. In the said L. A. C. 09/1978/L. A. C. 304/1981, the Parties no. 3 and 4 made an application dated 20/4/1978 praying therein to add them as parties. The Party No. 1 had filed reply dated 10/1/1984, vehemently opposing the said application. The Party no. 2, by reply dated 27/2/1984, had also opposed the said application. By order dated 30/10/1985, the learned reference Court allowed the said application and thus the Parties no. 3 and 4 got impleaded as parties to the said L. A. C. No. 304/1981. 23. In First Appeal No. 308/2003, Party no. 1 has challenged the impugned Judgment and Award in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, inter alia, on the ground that the trial court illegally and de-hors the provisions of the L. A. Act joined the Parties no. 3 and 4 and the same could not have been done as no reference was made at the behest of the said parties. 1 has challenged the impugned Judgment and Award in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, inter alia, on the ground that the trial court illegally and de-hors the provisions of the L. A. Act joined the Parties no. 3 and 4 and the same could not have been done as no reference was made at the behest of the said parties. In the case of “Govind Narayan Lotlikar Vs. Smt. Savitribai Roghuvira Lotlikar and others”, reported in A.I.R. 1987 BOM. 32, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be added as party to the proceedings before the Reference Court, in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, even if such party has or has acquired any right over the land which was acquired and which was the subject matter in the Land Acquisition proceedings in which the reference has been made. In the case of “Shri Dattaram Deu Dessai” (supra), the point for determination was whether a person who had not been a party to the land Acquisition proceedings before the Collector can seek impleadment as a party to the proceedings before the District Court in a reference under Section 30 of the L. A. Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court has answered the said point in the negative. It has been held that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. do not apply to the Land Acquisition Reference. It has been further held that the scope of reference under the L. A. Act is limited one and would depend on objections raised by the claimants and is further restricted to the subjects listed in Sections 18 and 30 of the L. A. Act. Then, in the case of “Digambar Pued”(supra), the issue was whether provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable to the proceedings of reference under Sections 18 and 30 of the L. A. Act. The learned Single Judge of this Court has answered the said issue in the negative. Reference has been made to the case of “Smt Ambey Devi Vs. The learned Single Judge of this Court has answered the said issue in the negative. Reference has been made to the case of “Smt Ambey Devi Vs. State of Bihar” (A.I.R. 1996 SC 1513), in which the Apex Court has observed that the procedure prescribed under sections 18 and 30 of the Act is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. In this regard, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Parties no. 3 and 4 has not relied upon any provision of law or on any citation, to the contrary. Therefore the order dated 30/10/1985 passed by the reference Court in L. A. C. 09/1978/L. A. C. No. 304/1981, adding the Parties no. 3 and 4 to the case is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside and is thus set aside. Hence, neither Party no. 3 nor Party no. 4 is entitled to receive any compensation in respect of plot no. 199 concerned in L. A. C. NO 304/1981. As already stated above, it has been already held by the reference Court, in L.A. C. No. 304/1981 that the Parties no. 2 and 5 are not entitled to receive any compensation in respect of this plot. The Parties no. 2 and 5 have not challenged the impugned Judgment and Award and are even not interested in the present appeals. In the circumstances above, only the claim of Party No. 1 remains intact in respect of the compensation pertaining to plot no. 199. 24. Party no.1(a) i. e. AW.1 has deposed that they own and possess in all 22 properties situated in Sanguem Taluka out of which some of the properties have been acquired by the Government for Salaulim Irrigation Project. He has further stated that the properties surveyed under no. 162 to 195, 200 to 202, 239 to 241, 347 to 349 and 354 are some of the portions of the entire property known as 'Gounleavaddi moll' also known as 'Ankdimateamoll', situated at Curdi Village. Merely because in the above statement AW.1 has omitted plots no. 196 to 199, the reference Court has held that his testimony does not disclose anywhere that they are the owners of plots no. 196 to 199. The above finding, in my view, is erroneous. First of all, at page no. 1 of his deposition, AW.1 gave the above plots no. 196 to 199, the reference Court has held that his testimony does not disclose anywhere that they are the owners of plots no. 196 to 199. The above finding, in my view, is erroneous. First of all, at page no. 1 of his deposition, AW.1 gave the above plots no. 162 to 195, 200 to 202, 239 to 241, 347 to 349 and 354 as of some of the portions of their entire property and not as of all the portions of their property. Subsequently, at page no. 2, AW.1 has mentioned the other plots no. 164 to 196, 198, 201, 203, 205, 206, 209 to 214, 216 and 241 as those in which there are tenants occupying the property and staying in that property. AW.1 has stated that the said properties are registered in the Land Registration Office under No. 25992 and inscribed in the name of his two brothers Rajendra and Jaganath and enrolled in the Matriz under No. 617. AW. 1 has given the boundaries of the said property. In his cross-examination, AW.1 has stated that the said property was gifted to his said two brothers by his grandmother and thereafter by mutual understanding they have agreed to share of 1/5th as of AW.1. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the properties were registered in the Land registration Office under No. 25992 on the basis of partition done in Civil Suit No. 3/75 in Quepem Court. AW.2, who is the father of AW.1 and of parties no. 1(b) to 1(e) has produced on record the said title documents. He has corroborated AW.1 on material aspects. The certificate of Land registration along with translation is at Exhibit AW.2/A. Matriz certificate is at Exhibit AW.2/B. Copies of five challans regarding payment of land revenue, for the years from 1974 to 1978, are at Exhibit AW.2/E colly. There is no suggestion put to AW.2 that the said title documents produced by him do not pertain to the property from which plots no. 196 to 199 were acquired. Hence, as has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Party No. 1, question of identification of the property mentioned in the title documents vis-a-vis the acquired property does not arise. The finding of the learned reference Court that no efforts have been made to show that plots no. 196 to 199 were acquired. Hence, as has been rightly submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Party No. 1, question of identification of the property mentioned in the title documents vis-a-vis the acquired property does not arise. The finding of the learned reference Court that no efforts have been made to show that plots no. 196 to 199 correspond to the property described in the title documents produced by Party no.1, is not correct. The learned reference Court has not at all discussed the evidence of AW.3, Shri Vishnu Chiplunkar, who has deposed in favour of Party no. 1. The reference Court has not held that the evidence of AW.3 is not reliable. He has in fact corroborated the testimony of AW.1and AW.2. AW.3 has stated about the boundaries of the property 'Goulivadimol', of Party no. 1. AW.3 has stated that there were two houses in the said property, one of which was occupied by Pascoal and second by another person and that these houses are now acquired by the Government. Thus, AW.3 has also identified the property of Party no. 1 as the one in which house occupied by Pascoal ( Party No. 3), was situated and has been acquired by the Government. Party no. 4(P.No.3), Delfino Fernandes has himself deposed that the Government has acquired plots no. 196 to 199 situated at Vaddem, Porttem. Even the Party no. 2 had alleged that the acquired land is situated at Vaddem of Sanguem Taluka. Therefore, the reference Court ought not to have doubted the evidence produced by Party no. 1 by observing that the property claimed by Party no. 1 is situated at Vaddem of Curdi Village whereas the property which has been acquired by the Government is situated at Porttem Village. May be there are some contradictions in the testimonies of AW.1 and AW.2. But they are not so serious so as to render their testimonies unreliable. The learned reference Court has therefore wrongly held that the Party no. 1 had failed to discharge their burden to prove ownership of the said plots no. 196 and 199. Party no. 1 has duly proved their ownership of the said property. 25. In the award which is at exhibit P-3/A it is observed by the SLAO that Pascoal Fernandes (Party no. 3) has claimed to be the tenant and deemed owner of plots no. 196 and 199. Party no. 1 has duly proved their ownership of the said property. 25. In the award which is at exhibit P-3/A it is observed by the SLAO that Pascoal Fernandes (Party no. 3) has claimed to be the tenant and deemed owner of plots no. 196 and 197 and Shri Delfino Fernandes (Party no. 4) has claimed the same in respect of plot no. 198. The above observations of the SLAO are on the basis of the claims put forth by the respective parties before him. AW.1, in his deposition, has specifically stated that there were tenants occupying the property bearing plots no. 164 to 196, 198, 201, 203, 205, 206, 209 to 214, 216 and 241 and staying therein. He has stated that the names of these tenants are mentioned in the Gazette dated 17/2/76. AW.2 has further specifically stated that they have accepted before the L. A. Officer that these persons are tenants of the said property. AW.2 has also stated that he had about 50 tenants in the said property. However, AW.2 has added that Parties no. 2, 3 and 4 are not tenants. AW.3 has stated that said Pascoal was a watch and ward of the said property. It should be kept in mind that an amount of Rs. 9705.03/-has been already paid to the Party no. 3 (since deceased) towards 50% compensation of land, as a result of being tenant of the same and towards acquired trees from plots no. 196 and 197. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 741.75/- has been already paid to the Party no. 4 toward 50% compensation of land, as a result of his being tenant, in respect of plot no. 198. The certificate in this regard is produced by AW. 2 himself as Exhibit AW.2/G-colly. Party no.1 did not object to the payment of 50% of compensation towards land and towards trees to Parties no. 3 and 4. According to AW.2, though in Exhibit AW.2/G-colly, Pascoal is shown as a tenant, however, he was never a tenant but only a watch and ward of the said property. AW.2 has stated that as said Pascoal requested him not to object to his receiving compensation in the said case, he did not object. AW.2 has admitted that they have not challenged the receipt of compensation by Pascoal and by Delfino Fernandes. AW.2 has stated that as said Pascoal requested him not to object to his receiving compensation in the said case, he did not object. AW.2 has admitted that they have not challenged the receipt of compensation by Pascoal and by Delfino Fernandes. The above facts go to show that Party no.1 has admitted the peculiar nature of possession of Parties no.3 and 4. in respect of plots no. 196 to 198 and therefore had allowed them to receive compensation. 26. Third proviso to Section 31(2) of the L. A. Act provides that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Insofar as the amount already paid to the Parties no. 3 and 4, is concerned, no reference under Section 30 of the L. A. Act has been made and the present references relate only to the balance amount. The above third proviso to Section 32(2) of the L. A. Act contemplates Civil Suit and does not create right to get refunds. Hence, the question of Party no. 1 claiming, in these cases, the said compensation already paid to the Parties no. 3 and 4, does not arise. Besides the above, the said amount was paid by the SLAO, as there was no objection from other interested parties including the Party no. 1. 27. No doubt, in the L.A.C. No. 303/1981, Parties no. 3 and 4 have claimed compensation on the ground that they were in possession of the said properties at the time of acquisition and that their possession was adverse. Here, they did not put forth the claim of tenancy. 28. It is seen from the evidence on record that Pascoal Fernandes and his family members including the son namely Delfino Fernandes were occupying the house situated in the acquired plot no. 197. According to the Party no. 1, however, the said house as well as another house which was occupied by Joao were constructed by AW.2. AW.1 has produced a copy of certificate of licence issued by Sanguem Municipality. However, there is nothing on record to prove that this certificate pertains to the house which was occupied by Parties no. 3 and 4 and situated in said plot no. 197. AW.1 has produced a copy of certificate of licence issued by Sanguem Municipality. However, there is nothing on record to prove that this certificate pertains to the house which was occupied by Parties no. 3 and 4 and situated in said plot no. 197. A suggestion has been put to AW.1 that the licence issued by Sanguem Municipality does not relate to the houses occupied by the parties no. 3 and 4. That way, even, AW.4 [Party no. 2(d)] has produced Alvara de Licenca No. 44 saying that his father had constructed barracks in that property and had employed Pascoal Fernandes (Party No. 3) as care taker of the said mining property and that said Pascoal was residing in one of the said Barracks. However, there is no evidence on record to prove that the said Alvara pertains to the house occupied by the parties no. 3 and 4. In fact, the same cannot pertain to the said house since the witness of Party No. 2 (P.2-2) has stated in his cross-examination that Pascoal Fernandes was residing in the property before the mining operations started. Party No. 3 (P. No.3) has deposed that they were residing in the house situated in the acquired land and that the said house was constructed by his father, in the year 1955. Fact remains that admittedly, Pascoal Fernandes with his family was residing in the house situated in the said property. AW.2 has admitted that said Pascoal Fernandes was doing work in the said property and had planted coconut saplings, cashew saplings and was watering them. Thus, the well was also used by Parties no. 3 and 4 for watering the saplings. AW. 2 has also stated that Pascoal was looking after the coconut trees and was cleaning the cashew trees. However, according to AW.2, Pascoal was doing the said work on their behalf. Though AW.2 has stated that they used to pay Rs. 120/- per year to Pascoal and that this fact was known to Satish, however, Satish (AW.1) has stated that Pascoal has not done any work of plantation of cashew trees in the suit property and was not doing anything for them in the suit property. AW.1 has stated that he never paid any amount to said Pascoal for the work he was doing in the suit property. AW.1 has not stated that his father used to pay Rs. AW.1 has stated that he never paid any amount to said Pascoal for the work he was doing in the suit property. AW.1 has not stated that his father used to pay Rs. 120/- or any amount to Pascoal. AW.4 (Party No. 2(d) has admitted in his cross-examination that Pascoal and his family members were enjoying the fruits of the trees, though he has added that Pascoal's wife used to give to them cashew seeds every year. 29. The facts and circumstances discussed above are such that the possession of Parties no. 3 and 4 in respect of plots no. 196 to 198, appears to have been proved to be of such nature as to entitle them to receive entire compensation pertaining to the said plots and hence none of the other interested parties had taken objection to payment of 50% of compensation towards land and compensation towards trees, in respect of plots no. 196 to 198, to the Parties no. 3 and 4, before the SLAO. 30. In view of the above, the finding of the learned reference court in L. A. C. No. 303/1981 that the Parties No. 3(a) to 3(k) are entitled to receive the compensation regarding plots no. 196 and 197, whereas Party no. 4 is entitled to receive compensation in respect of plot no. 198 together with interest accrued thereon, on the strength of their possession, cannot be faulted. However, the finding of the reference Court, in L. A. C. No. 304/1981, that the Parties no. 3(a) to 3(k) and Party no. 4 are entitled to receive compensation in respect of plot no. 199 cannot stand and is bound to be set aside since the said Parties no. 3(a) to 3(k) and Party no. 4 were not parties to the Land Acquisition proceedings before the SLAO, in respect of plot no. 199 and hence could not have been added to the said L. A. C. No. 304/1981. No interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award in L. A. C. No. 303/1981 whereas interference is warranted with respect to the impugned Judgment and Award in L. A. C. No. 304/1981. 31. In the result, First Appeal No. 307/2003 is dismissed and First Appeal No. 308/2003 is allowed. Impugned Judgment and Award dated 09/07/2003, in L. A. C. NO. 304/1981 is quashed and set aside. Parties no. 31. In the result, First Appeal No. 307/2003 is dismissed and First Appeal No. 308/2003 is allowed. Impugned Judgment and Award dated 09/07/2003, in L. A. C. NO. 304/1981 is quashed and set aside. Parties no. 1(a), 1(b), 1(c.i) to 1(c.iv), 1(d) and 1(e) are entitled to receive and accordingly shall be paid the compensation in respect of plot no. 199, deposited before the District Court, along with accrued interest, if any, till the date of payment. No order as to costs.