: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 418 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2005 The Communidade of Panchawadi .. Applicant V e r s u s Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. M. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM:- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated:- 1ST JULY, 2010. ORAL ORDER : This application was taken up for hearing at the time of final hearing of the First Appeal. The challenge in First Appeal is to the judgment and award dated 29th October, 2004 passed in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Applicant is the claimant in the said reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. By this application, a prayer is made under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : 2 : ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code” ), seeking permission to produce the true copies of the sale deeds dated 8th May, 1992 and 20th April,1993. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant invited our attention to the affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief of Mr. Santosh T. Bhangui, the constituted attorney of the Applicant. He pointed out that in the said affidavit, the aforesaid sale deeds are referred to and relied upon. He submitted that the said two sale deeds are relevant documents to determine the market value of the land. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent opposed the application by pointing out that there is no reason set out as to why the said documents could not produced before the Reference Court. He pointed out that the area of the acquired land is 2,16,139 square metres and the sale deeds are in respect of small plots admeasuring 376 square metres and 691 square metres respectively. He, therefore, submitted that the sale instances of such a small area cannot be sale instances of comparable lands considering the large area of the acquired land. : 3 : 3. From the deposition of the constituted attorney of the Applicant, we find that he has referred to and relied upon both the sale deeds. We are, therefore, of the view that in exercise of powers under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the said Code, permission deserves to be granted to produce the said documents. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant states that the Applicant desires to examine Mr. Santosh T. Bhangui, constituted attorney of the Applicant, one Mr. Abhay Kamat, President of the Applicant, Mr. Ramesh Verenkar, expert valuer and Mr. Abel D'Costa, the brother of the purchaser under sale deed dated 8th May, 1992 and either vendor or purchaser under sale deed dated 20th April, 1993. He states that the evidence of the witnesses will be confined to the two documents which are permitted to be produced. As we are permitting the production of the true copies of the two sale deeds, a permission will have to be granted to the Applicant to examine the aforesaid witnesses. It is obvious that the examination will be confined to the two sale deeds. The examination will be for proving the case of the Applicant that the lands subject matter of the sale deeds are comparable to the acquired land. Instead of recording evidence of the witnesses before this Court, we direct that the evidence shall be taken before : 4 : the Reference Court in accordance with Rule 28 of Order XLI of the said Code. 4. Hence, we dispose of the application by passing the following order :- O R D E R (A) The application is allowed. The production of the documents is permitted. (B) We permit the Applicant to examine the witnesses named in earlier part of this order. We make it clear that the examination of the witnesses shall be confined to the two documents which are permitted to be produced. We clarify that the Applicant will be entitled to lead evidence on the issue of comparability of the acquired land with lands subject matter of two sale deeds. It is obvious that the Respondents will be entitled to cross examine the witnesses on the said two documents. It will be open to the Respondents to lead the evidence for dealing with the said two documents and the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. : 5 : (C) We direct that the Registry to forward the record of the Land Acquisition Case to the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji, Goa. The learned Principal District Judge will assign the Land Acquisition Case to the appropriate Court for recording of evidence in terms of this order. (D) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal District Court, Panaji Goa, on Monday 26th July, 2010 at 2.30 p.m., for the purpose of fixing date for recording evidence. Recording of evidence shall be completed by the Reference Court within a period of three months from 26th July, 2010. (E) After recording of evidence, the Court will transmit the record to this Court. Appeal shall be fixed for final hearing in the week commencing from 15th November, 2010. A.S. OKA, J F.M. REIS, J at*