1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 186/2006 with MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.413/2006 Jerry Braganza, r/o. Near St. Jerome's Church, Mapusa, Goa. ........ Appellant. V/s. 1. Land Acquisition Officer, P.W.D. (Cell) Altinho, Panaji, Goa. 2. Executive Engineer, Works Division, PWD (R), Mapusa, Goa. ........ Respondents. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shaikh Vahidulla, Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date :- 17th June, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S. OKA, J.) We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 23rd January, 2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Mapusa in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), made at the instance of the appellant. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the reference has been answered against the appellant-claimant by holding that the appellant has not discharged the burden of showing that the market value of the acquired land offered under the award under Section 11 of the said Act was inadequate. The acquisition relates to land surveyed under Survey No.144-5/1 at Mapusa City admeasuring 1132 sq. metres. The Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on 6th June, 2002. Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 23rd January, 2004 by which market value at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. metre was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the notes of evidence and the documents on record. He pointed out that the sale instance of the sale deed dated 14th May, 1993 was of a comparable land inasmuch as it was a paddy land on the date of the sale. He submitted that there is no material on record to show that the said land was sold along with the houses, structures and walls. The learned Counsel submitted that the usual and standard phraseology used in the conveyance has been picked up by the learned trial Judge for holding that there were houses constructed on the said land. He submitted that the other two sale instances have been rejected by recording reasons which are totally erroneous. He submitted that in the Outline Development Plan of the city, the acquired land, on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the said Act, was shown in the commercial zone. He, therefore, submitted that considering the sale instances and the reports of the valuers and their evidence, the reference ought to have been allowed. The learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. After the appeal was argued substantially, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant stated that a misc. civil application 4 for leading additional evidence is already filed and the appellant wants to produce some documents showing that on the date of the sale, the land subject-matter of the sale instance at Exhibit-23 was a paddy land. He submitted that an opportunity be granted to the appellant to lead further evidence to show that the land subject-matter of the said sale instance was a paddy land and was comparable with the acquired land in all respects. He submitted that the appellant also desires to show that on the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the said Act, in the Outline Development Plan, user of the acquired land for commercial purposes was permissible. He submitted that the appellant be granted opportunity to lead further evidence by placing the some other sale instances on record. He submitted that a valuable land of the appellant has been lost and, therefore, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellant to lead further evidence. The learned Government Advocate opposed the said request. 4. We find that certain documents have been annexed to the application for leading additional evidence which, according to the appellant, show that the land subject-matter of the sale instance at Exhibit-23 was a paddy land. There is a valid explanation as to why 5 the said documents could not be produced earlier. We are satisfied that the appellant-applicant will have to be permitted to adduce evidence by producing the documents annexed to the misc. civil application. Therefore, permission will have to be granted to the appellant to adduce evidence on the said documents. Naturally the respondents will have to be permitted to adduce evidence. Considering the fact that the land situated within the area of Mapusa Municipal Council has been lost in acquisition, we feel that an opportunity deserves to be granted to the appellant to lead further evidence in support of his case. The reference application has been dismissed and even if the award is set aside by passing an order or remand, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. They will also get an opportunity to lead evidence. Hence, we pass the following order : (A) The impugned Judgment and Award is quashed and set aside and Land Acquisition Case No.97/2004 is restored to the file of the District Court. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Mapusa on 19th July, 2010. (B) It will be open for the appellant to lead further evidence by recalling himself. The appellant will be entitled to produce 6 documents. The appellant will be entitled to recall the witnesses examined earlier and to examine additional witnesses. (C) It is obvious that it will also be open for the respondents to apply for recalling of the witnesses who are already examined by the appellant. The respondents will be entitled to lead further evidence. (D) After considering the evidence which is already adduced and the evidence which may be adduced after remand, the reference Court will decide the reference afresh in accordance with law. (E) We direct that the reference shall be disposed of expeditiously and preferably before end of February, 2011. (F) We keep all contentions of the parties open. Record of the case be transmitted immediately. (G) Misc. Civil Application No.413/2006 is allowed. The appellant will produce the relevant documents before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. A.S. OKA, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm.