1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2007 WITH MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2010 Shri Kashinath Betu Gawas, son of Betu Gawas, major in age, Indian National, R/o. Durgawada, Navetim, Bicholim Goa. …. Appellant V/s 1. The Additional Deputy Collector/ Land Acquisition Officer, Mapusa Sub-division, Mapusa-Goa. 2. Goa Daman and Diu Industrial Development Corporation, Panaji Goa. …. Respondents Mr. A. Kansar, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 9th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGEMENT :(Per A.S. OKA, J.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. We have heard learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for first respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for second respondent which is the acquiring body. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 2 24th May, 2007 passed in a Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) made at the instance of the appellant. The acquisition related to the land having an area of 2,16,100 square metres surveyed under Survey No.207 (part) of Navelim Village. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published in Official Gazette on 21st October, 1993. By the impugned judgment and award, the reference has been dismissed. One of the grounds on which reference is dismissed is that Form No.I and XIV disclose that the appellant is the tenant in respect of the acquired land. The Reference Court referred to Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 and came to the conclusion in view of prohibition contained in Section 2 of the said Act of 1991, the market value of the acquired land cannot be determined on the basis of building potential of the acquired land in as much as the acquired land could not have been put to any use other than agriculture. As there was no evidence of comparable sale instances, the reference was answered against the appellant. 3. Misc. Civil application No.516 of 2010 has been preferred by the appellant by invoking Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as the said Act). It is pointed out in the said application that now the appellant is in possession of certain sale deeds relating to agricultural lands which according to the 3 appellant were comparable lands. Permission is sought to produce copies of the sale deeds and copies of Form No.I and XIV in respect of the lands subject matter of the said sale deeds. It is stated in the application that the appellant is an illiterate person and he only knows to sign in devnagari script. The appellant had no knowledge of the documents which are sought to be produced. 4. The reference has been dismissed on the ground that the potential of the acquired land for non-agricultural use cannot be considered. However, if there is an evidence of sale instance in respect of a comparable agricultural land, the same can be considered. According to the case of the appellant, the documents which he is seeking to produce are sale deeds relating to agricultural lands which are comparable to the acquired land. It is stated that the only land of the appellant has been acquired in the acquisition. 5. We are of the view that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the applicant to adduce additional evidence. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the application made by the appellant. 6. The appellant will have to prove the documents which have been permitted to be produced. The appellant will have to also establish that the sale deeds which he is seeking to produce by way of additional 4 evidence relate to agricultural lands, which were being used for agricultural purposes on the relevant date and that the lands subject matter of the sale deeds are comparable to the acquired lands. It is obvious that an opportunity will have to be granted to the respondent to lead evidence by way of rebuttal. Hence, we dispose the appeal by passing the following order; ORDER (a) The impugned judgment and award dated 24th May, 2007 is quashed and set aside and Land Acquisition Case No.87/2002 is remanded to the District Court. (b) Misc. Civil application No.516/2010 is allowed. The appellant is permitted to produce the certified copies of the documents referred to in the said application before the trial Court. (c) The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on Monday, 27th September, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. The appellant is permitted to produce the aforesaid documentary evidence and to adduce oral evidence in support of the said documentary evidence. The respondents will be entitled to lead oral and documentary evidence in rebuttal. 5 (d) The reference shall be decided by the Reference Court afresh. The reference shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably before the end of March, 2011. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. Appeal is partly allowed on above terms. A.S. OKA, J. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-