Judgment : 1. The suit property came to be acquired by the Konkan Railway for putting up the railway track running through the length of Goa. A part of the track is claimed to be in the possession of several parties. The acquiring authority deposited the entire compensation which had to be apportioned between the parties. The acquisition is accepted. Claiming compensation by various parties is denied by others. Consequently Land Acquisition Case (LAC) was filed by the relevant SLAO. All the parties filed their written statements claiming possession and/or ownership. Their claims have been considered in the LAC. It is from the order of the learned Third District Judge, Margaon in the LAR Case that these first appeals have been filed. 2. There were seven parties who claimed compensation. Their claim of compensation has been considered upon raising issues with regard to their possession and/or ownership. Since all of these parties have separately challenged the order of the learned Judge in the LAC they are variously numbered in the above first appeals. It would, therefore, be proper to refer to them by their names. 3. Parties claiming compensation are: I 1. Manguesh Ambo) 2. Kamlabai Ambo ) Ambos 3. Sitabai Ambo ) II 1. Rohidas Datta Fal Dessai ) Dessais And 2. Vithoba Mahadev Dessai Who claim as co-owners and/or exclusively. III – The Communidade of Balli (Communidade) Who claims ownership as also possession. IV – One Valente Fernandez to whom the part of the land of Ambos was sold by Manguesh Ambo and who has not prosecuted his claim for compensation. 4. The ownership and possession of Ambos, Dessais and the Communidade would have to be decided. 5. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment also set out the claims of all the parties to prove their respective possession and/or ownership in their written statements upon which the learned Judge framed issues with regard to possession and/or ownership. The learned Judge accepted the possession of Ambos. The learned Judge rejected the claim of possession and/or ownership of Dessais and the Communidade upon considering the evidence of the parties. 6. Each of the parties led oral evidence and produced documentary evidence with regard to their claim of possession and/or ownership. The Communidade examined another witness who was an Engineer to produce a survey plan. Dessais examined their surveyor upon a survey carried on by Dessais without notice to Ambos. 6. Each of the parties led oral evidence and produced documentary evidence with regard to their claim of possession and/or ownership. The Communidade examined another witness who was an Engineer to produce a survey plan. Dessais examined their surveyor upon a survey carried on by Dessais without notice to Ambos. 7. The claim of the parties in the above first appeals would also required to be similarly considered with regard to their possession and/or ownership. The essential point of determination would be to see whether the Ambos, the Dessais or Communidade prove their respective possession and/or ownership. 8. Manguesh Ambo led evidence and produced the survey record of the property claimed to be in his possession for 30 years prior to the LAC. The survey records contained in Form Nos. I & XIV show the suit property under survey No.53/0. The name of Manguesh Ambo appeared in the occupants' column and other rights column. Ambos claim that the survey records show their possession through the years. The evidence has shown that Dessais have not challenged the survey records. The Ambos claim the presumption of the correctness of the survey records and the presumption of title in view of their long and uninterrupted possession reflected in survey records under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 which runs thus: “110. Burden of proof as to ownership. – When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”. 9. The Ambos rely upon the judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. Vs. Collector and Ors. 2003 AIR SCC 1805 holding that in view of the long and uninterrupted possession, title to the land in their favour has to be presumed and it would be for the other claimants to prove that they were not the owners of the land. It is held in that judgment that possession of a property is prima facie prove of ownership and casts a burden on the party who denies the ownership to rebut it. It further holds that the presumption is rebutable and would apply when possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title. It is held in that judgment that possession of a property is prima facie prove of ownership and casts a burden on the party who denies the ownership to rebut it. It further holds that the presumption is rebutable and would apply when possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title. It would, therefore, not apply if the Communidade and Dessais show their respective titles as a party in possession cannot claim a higher right against the owners of the land. If, however, the Communidade does not prove its ownership, it would not be entitled to rebut the possession of Ambos lawfully obtained and continued. The other documents of possession of Ambos would, therefore, be required to be considered and which have been considered by the learned Judge also in the impugned judgment. 10. Manguesh Ambo claims to have sold a part of their property under survey No.53 to Valente Fernandez under a sale deed dated 21st July, 1982. In the sale deed it is recited that Manguesh Ambo shown as Vendor and his wife Sulochana were owners and possessors of the property under Land Registration No.3520. The sale deed shows the various boundaries of the property of Ambos. Two of the boundaries are material to consider. The South of the property of Ambos under registration No.3520 shows a rivulet / water drain (river) to the East of the property is a hill of the Communidade. It shows a Government hospital/health care center/Military hospital (hospital) on the East of the property agreed to be sold to Fernandez. It also shows that that plot sold was bounded on the North by the property sold to Vinayak Dessai ( the other claimant). 11. A deed of rectification dated 7th November, 1990 between those parties show that land under the sale deed dated 21st July, 1982 was the land under survey No.53. Ambos gave their “No objection” to transfer a portion of that land in village Balli under survey No.53. That property is also shown to have the Government hospital on the East and the plot sold to Vinayak Dessai on the North. 12. A reading of these two documents would show that the plot of land not sold by Ambos and which remained with them in their possession has a river to the South. That property is also shown to have the Government hospital on the East and the plot sold to Vinayak Dessai on the North. 12. A reading of these two documents would show that the plot of land not sold by Ambos and which remained with them in their possession has a river to the South. The plot of land sold by Ambos to Fernandez has the land sold to the Vinayak Dessai to the North. 13. The Government Survey Plan accepted by all the parties would be material to see in this regard. Survey No.54 is shown to be a small piece of land to the West of survey No.53. Survey No.55 which admittedly belongs to Dessais is shown to the South of survey No.53. Survey No.53 is claimed by Ambos. Part of survey No.53 was sold to Fernandez. The river is the material boundary to consider. The river is shown to the South of survey No.53 in the sale deed of 1982. The oral evidence of Dessais shows an admission that the North boundary of their property is a river. Consequently the property claimed by Ambos under survey No.53 and the property claimed by Ambos and Dessais under survey No.55 are separated by the river which is to the South of the property of Ambos and to the North of the property of Dessais. The land of Ambos which remained with Ambos after a part of the land was sold to Fernandez is a land claimed by Ambos having that striking boundary made by the river. 14. A survey plan got produced from a private surveyor by Dessais without notice to Ambos and which is disputed by Ambos also shows a river in about the same place. It is to the South of survey No.53 and the North of survey No.55. The river is also shown to the South of survey No.54 which is the hospital. 15. In view of the acceptance of the river as the boundary and the dispute as to where precisely the river was, this Court called upon the District Surveyor of Land Records (DSLR) to appoint the Government Surveyor to make a survey of survey Nos.53, 54 and 55 and to show/draw the river on the Government survey plan. The river has been drawn by the surveyor and shows the demarcation of the properties as aforesaid. 16. The river has been drawn by the surveyor and shows the demarcation of the properties as aforesaid. 16. Manguesh Ambo filed a civil suit No.53 of 1992 for compensation against Konkan Railway and certain contractors for having dumped mud on his land. In that suit he has described the suit property and claimed that trees on his property have been destroyed by the mud that has been dumped upon the acquisition of the land of the construction of the railway track. He claimed deprivation of his possessory right. Upon seeing his ownership right and his possession, the suit came to be decreed and which decree has not been challenged by either Dessais or the Communidade. 17. Ambos claim to have handed over possession to the SLAO. That overt act would follow from the possession shown by him in the aforesaid documents. 18. Manguesh Ambo has accepted the co-ownership rights of the other Ambos. His evidence shows that his right is to the extent of 14/24 of the land. The right of Kamlabai Ambo and her heirs is to the extent of 6/24 of the property and the right of Sitabai Ambo is to the extent of 4/24 of the property. 19. In view of the above evidence further documents relied upon by him may not be considered. 20. Dessais have led evidence and produced the title deeds of 1892 and 1988. They are brothers. Whereas one claims exclusive possession, the other claims co-ownership with his brother. Their documents of title and their oral evidence show that their land is to the South of the river. That would be survey No.55. Consequently they would not be entitled to the land acquired under survey No.53 and the compensation therefrom. 21. The Communidade of Balli has sought to show that they had created an aframento in favour of one Bernard Barreto in 1988 for survey No.53 part and subsequently that land was purchased by Manguesh Ambo and he planted various coconut trees and eucalyptus trees and fruit bearing trees. Part of that land has a hospital under survey No.54. They claim that the remainder of the land to the East was hilly and barren which remained in their possession and through which the railway track passes. The hilly land is indeed shown to the East of the land of Ambos. Part of that land has a hospital under survey No.54. They claim that the remainder of the land to the East was hilly and barren which remained in their possession and through which the railway track passes. The hilly land is indeed shown to the East of the land of Ambos. However that land has not been shown to be the acquired land in the possession of the Communidade. 22. The Communidade filed Civil Suit No.13/92/B for correction of the survey record showing the possession of Ambos in respect of suit land. That suit and the subsequent appeals therefrom have been dismissed. Their further evidence with regard to a hut and a distillery on that land becomes immaterial to consider. 23. The above evidence shows the possession of Ambos as shown in the survey records and as substantiated from their sale deed and their civil suit. It shows the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act having continued and not rebutted by the claim of the Communidade in their suit. The possession claimed by Dessais is to a wholly different land to the South of the river under survey No.55. Consequently the compensation must be given to Ambos in the aforesaid proportion. 24. This is precisely what has been considered and granted by the learned Judge in the impugned order under the issues framed by the Court with regard to the possession of the parties. No case is made out for interference with the judgment. 25. Consequently the impugned judgment dated 4th August, 2006 of the learned Third Additional District Judge, Margaon is confirmed. 26. All first appeals are disposed off accordingly. 27. All the remaining applications in the appeals are also disposed off accordingly.