The High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Communidade of Margao challenging an order directing it to refund over ₹67 lakh received as compensation for land acquired for the expansion of National Highway 17 (now NH-66).
The High Court upheld the directive issued by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition, PWD Cell, which mandated the Communidade to return ₹67,05,076 after it was revealed that the compensation rightfully belonged to a tenant who had obtained absolute ownership of the land over three decades ago.
The matter traces back to 2017 when land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act, for widening NH-17 into NH-66 across several survey numbers in Salcete taluka. On October 31, 2018, CALA passed an award acquiring 1,300 square meters forming part of Survey No. 72/7 in Navelim village, with total compensation for the acquired stretch computed at ₹3.60 crore.
Revenue records (Form I & XIV) listed the Communidade of Margao as an occupant alongside a tenant. Under the 2018 award, CALA placed the compensation in a revenue deposit, specifying that disbursement would follow upon verification of legal tenancy orders issued by the Mamlatdar.
Despite this, the Communidade subsequently applied for and secured the withdrawal of 50% of the compensation amount—totalling ₹67,05,076—without notifying the tenant, Miguel Rosario Cardozo, or disclosing the tenant's pre-existing purchase of the land.
In September 2023, the tenant, Miguel Rosario Cardozo, approached CALA seeking the release of the entire compensation amount. Cardozo produced a Purchase Certificate dated November 29, 1993, issued under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, confirming that he had purchased the land and become its absolute owner decades prior to the acquisition.
Consequently, on September 19, 2024, CALA passed an order directing the Communidade of Margao to refund the ₹67.05 lakh it had drawn.
Challenging the CALA directive, the Communidade, argued that the authority had become functus officio once the award was declared. Citing Division Bench judgments, he argued that CALA had no statutory jurisdiction under the National Highways Act and the 2013 Land Acquisition Act to alter, amend, or correct an award post-declaration.
The Counsel appearing for CALA and the State of Goa, pointed out that the Communidade had no surviving legal claim over the land once ownership had vested with the tenant in 1993.
Agreeing with the respondents, the High Court observed that the Communidade had "wrongfully withdrawn compensation amount payable to the respondent without disclosing rights conferred upon tenant vide purchase certificate dated 29.11.1993" behind his back. The court held that the Communidade's proprietary interest had been completely extinguished upon the issuance of the 1993 purchase certificate.
The Court noted that the original acquisition award expressly warned that recipients of compensation would remain liable to refund amounts if another person was lawfully adjudged entitled to them.
Holding that the petition was devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed the petition and cleared the path for the recovery and disbursement of the compensation to the rightful owner.
