:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2004 Shri Joao Fernandes r/o Ambelim, Salcete Goa. ( since deceased represented through legal heirs ) a. Ritinha Fernandes, b. Socorro Fernandes, c. Smt. Milagrina Fernandes, d. Shri Felix Fernandes, e. Shri Conceicao Fernandes, f. Smt. Joaquina Fernandes, g. Smt. Felicia Fernandes, h. Shri Ubaldo Correia, i. Smt. Besmita Fernandes, j. Shri Piedade Fernandes, k. Smt. Joana Fernandes, All residents of Velim, Salcete Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s Joseph Sales R/o Ambelim, Salcete Goa. ( since deceased represented through legal heirs ) a. Mrs. Anizia Sales Colaco, R/o Velim, Salcete Goa. b. Mr. Raimundo Sales Colaco, c. Mrs. Revita Colaco, both residents of AF-1, Hill Apartment, St. Joaquim Road, Borda, Salcete Goa. d. Mrs. Immaculada Sales Colaco, e. Mr. Wilson Caeiro, Both residing at House No.26, Caeiro Vaddo, Velim, Salcete Goa. f. Mr. Climaco Sales Colaco, g. Mrs. Geraldine Colaco Both residing at House No.75, Silva Vaddo, Velim, Salcete Goa. h. Mrs. Elly Sales Colaco, :2: i. Mr. Pracxy Colaco, j. Mrs. Pratima Colaco, k. Mr. Ludwig Vaz, All residing at House No.200, Porobus Vaddo, Velim, Salcete Goa. l. Mr. Mario Sales, m.Mrs. Lurdina Sales, Both residing at House No.26, Caeiro Vaddo, Velim, Salcete Goa. n. Mrs. Piola Viegas, o. Mr. George Fernandes, Both residing at Arco-Iris Apartment, 5th Building, Second Floor, Borda, Margao Goa. p. Mr. Luis Sales Rodrigues, q. Mrs. Maria Antonieta Gomes, r. Miss Alexandrina Sales e Rodrigues, All residing at Bironaik, Orlim, Salcete Goa. ... Respondents Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Party No.1. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Party No.2. CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 2nd June, 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No. 1/1993 whereby a reference preferred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as' the said Act' ) was partly allowed and party no.1 through the legal :3: representatives was held to be entitled to receive 1/6th share of the compensation whereas the party no.2 through the legal representatives was held to be entitled to receive 3/24th share of the compensation. The remaining amount was directed to be refunded to the Land Acquisition Officer. The parties shall be referred to as they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 2. The Government sought to acquire land for the purpose of construction of a road from Cumbiabhat to Nagoli in village panchayat of Ambelim in Salcete Taluka pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act bearing No. 22/184/84-RD dated 19th October, 1984 which was published in the official Gazette dated 15th November, 1984. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 29th March, 1990 and in view of the dispute raised by the parties hereto, the matter was referred for adjudication under Section 30 of the said Act. The learned District Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by judgment and award dated 2nd June, 2004 passed the impugned judgment. 3. Mr. A. F. Diniz, the learned Counsel appearing for the party no.1 has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court whilst deciding the reference has essentially relied upon the judgment and decree dated 7th December, 1998 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 49/80 and totally discarded the evidence adduced by the party no.1 in support of their claim. The learned Counsel further :4: submitted that the said suit had nothing to do with the acquired land when on the contrary party no.1 has produced the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No. 3/80 dated 25th January, 1994 wherein the land which was acquired was the suit property in the said suit. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said judgment was very relevant as according to him, it establish that the compensation was payable to the party no.1. The learned Counsel further submitted that apart the said judgment, the party no.1 had also produced the land registration document as well as sale deed pursuant to which the ancestor of the party no.1 had purchased the land acquired which has not even been considered by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel took me through the notes of evidence and pointed out that the Reference Court has totally failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the party no.1 and as such came to an erroneous conclusion that the party no.1 is entitled to only 1/6th share of the compensation while on the contrary, according to the learned Counsel, the whole amount deposited was payable to the party no.1. He has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the party no. 2 has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the judgment relied upon by the Reference Court is the only document which is relevant document for disposing the reference. :5: He further submitted that the land acquired was also the subject matter of the suit property in Special Civil suit No. 49/1980. He further submitted that the party no. 2 was not parties to Special Civil Suit No. 3/1980 and as such the findings arrived at therein are not binding on the party no. 2. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the party no.1 was entitled to only 1/6th share of the compensation and the party no. 2 was entitled to receive 3/24th share of the compensation. The learned Counsel as such submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following point for determination arise in the present appeal : POINT FOR DETERMINATION Whether the Reference Court was justified to come to the conclusion that the party no.1 was entitled to receive 1/6th share in the compensation while party no. 2 was entitled to receive 3/24th share in the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer ? 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Reference Court, I find that Mr. Diniz was justified to contend that the Reference Court has decided the reference solely on the basis of the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No. 49/1980. There is no dispute :6: that the party no.1 has also produced the land registration document at Exhibit 22 judgment dated 25.01.1994 and sale deed dated 15.01.1963 pursuant to which party no.1 is claiming title to the acquired land which is at Exhibit 21. The contention of the learned Counsel for the party no.1 is that the land acquired is a part of the property which was the subject matter of the said sale deed at Exhibit 21 and the property which is registered in land registration office under No.25603 and this aspect is not at all been considered by the Reference Court whilst passing the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that when the evidence is appreciated by the Court at the first instance, every piece of evidence which is produced on record by the parties has to be considered by the Court to come to the specific finding with regard to the issues framed in the proceedings. The documents produced by the party no.1 should have been considered by the Reference Court whilst passing impugned judgment. The relevancy or otherwise of the said documents as contended by the learned Counsel for the party no. 2 will have also to be considered on the basis of the evidence and pleadings of both the parties. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the Reference Court has not at all considered the said documents and as such the matter deserves to be remanded in order that the Reference Court may decide the reference afresh on the basis of the documents produced by the respective parties and the evidence adduced by them. Mr. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the party no. 2 submitted that during the pendency of the :7: proceedings, the appeal which was preferred by the party no. 2 came to be disposed of by the Appellate Court and he desires to produce the said judgment for consideration before the Reference Court together with the memo of the Second Appeal. Liberty is given to the party no. 2 to file an appropriate application before the Reference Court so as to enable them to produce the said documents for deciding the reference afresh in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded to the Reference Court to decide the Land Acquisition Case No. 1/1993 afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions raised by the parties are kept open. (v) Parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 25th October, 2010 at 10.00 a.m. F. M. REIS, J. at*