1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 278/2004 WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 900/2008 1)Smt. Aparna Rajendra Deshprabhu 2) Dr. Vasudeo Rajendra Deshprabhu, 3) Dr. Pavitra Vasudeo Deshprabhu, 4) Ms. Nayantara Rajendra Deshprabhu, All residents of Pernem, Goa. ….. Appellants. Versus 1) Deputy Collector (LA) and Land Acquisition Officer, Panaji, Goa. 2) The Director, Directorate of Transport Panaji, Goa. ….. Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. Salkar, Additional Govt. Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. Date : 3rd February, 2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) The first appeal as well as the misc. civil application are taken up for hearing together today. So far as first appeal is concerned, the same is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 19/8/2004, passed by the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, (Fast track Court), Mapusa, Goa in Land Acquisition Case No. 171/1996. By the aforesaid Judgment and Award, the learned trial Judge has rejected the reference of the present appellants for enhancement of the compensation. Under the said reference, the land of the appellants was sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short). The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, in this regard, was published on 15.11.1991, which was followed by Section 6 Notification dated 1.1.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) declared the Awarded on 4.8.1993 and the possession was obtained on 11.11.1993. The LAO awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. metre so far as the land under Survey No.2/1 of Village Pernem is concerned and awarded Rs.10/- per sq. metre so far as the land under Survey No. 3/2 of Village Pernem is concerned. Since the appellants/claimants were not satisfied 3 with the same, at their instance, the reference was made under Section 18 of the Act being Land Acquisition Case No. 171/1996. 2. The claim of the appellants before the reference Court was at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. metre for the land under Survey No.2/1 and at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. metre for the land under Survey No.3/2. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that since the land in question is a tenanted land, no compensation can be given to the claimants and the claim of the claimants was accordingly rejected in toto by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, (Fast Track Court) Mapusa, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 19.8.2004. It is that Award which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants moved an application being Misc. Civil Application No. 900/2008 for taking the additional evidence on record under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The additional evidence is in the form of two Awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Cases No.160/1996 and 161/1996. The said two cases have been decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa 4 under Section 30 of the Act. It is pointed out that the learned trial Judge has held in those references that the land, in question, could not be said to be a tenanted land. It is further pointed out that in the aforesaid two references, a reference was made to the Mamlatdar for deciding the status of the tenant and it was found that the land, in question, was not cultivated by the tenants and the claim of tenancy was dismissed by the competent authority i.e. the Mamlatdar. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the additional evidence is, accordingly, required to be taken on record, as the same has taken place during the pendency of the appeal. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submitted that he has no objection if the additional evidence is taken on record. Accordingly, Misc. Civil Application No.900/2008 is allowed and the said documents are treated as part of the present proceedings. Since the additional evidence is only in the nature of documentary evidence being the two Awards of the Additional District Judge, Mapusa, it is not necessary to ask the parties to lead evidence on such additional evidence. 5. Since the additional evidence is now allowed to be taken on 5 record, the matter is required to be remanded to the reference Court for deciding the reference afresh. 6. The impugned Judgment and Award dated 19.8.2004 is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the reference Court for deciding the reference afresh. The learned trial Judge shall decide the reference after taking into account the additional evidence allowed to be brought on record and shall determine the compensation in accordance with law. The reference Court, upon receipt of writ of this Court, shall issue notices to the parties for appearing before it and thereafter make endeavour to dispose of the said reference within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Record and Proceedings, be sent back to the reference Court, forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. Ssm.