:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2000 Communidade of Bardez, (through its Special Attorney Shri Manuel Velentino Paul ) ... Appellant. V e r s u s Ramchandra Govind Pawaskar, r/o “Sneha” Alto Porvorim, Bardez Goa. ... Respondent Mr. P. Talaulikar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Sudin Usgoankar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J DATED : 13th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant ( Communidade of Colvale ) has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 27th December, 1999 passed by the learned District Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :2: ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' ). The dispute was between the Appellant and the Respondent as regards the entitlement to receive the compensation on account of acquisition of land surveyed under survey No. 102 part admeasuring 9153 square metres of village Colvale. The Appellant has been described as the Applicant in the reference and the Respondent herein has been shown as the first Respondent. 3. The contention of the Appellant was that the acquired land was vesting in the Appellant - Communidade and the same was never used for agricultural purposes. It was contended that the first Respondent had fraudulently entered his name in the survey records as a tenant and a declaration of tenancy was obtained by the Respondent without giving notice to the Appellant. The case made out by the Respondent was that the Respondent purchased the acquired land under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1964'). The Respondent contended that a sanad has been issued in his favour under the said Act of 1964. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was a declaration issued by the Mamlatdar in tenancy case No. 3/1977 in favour of the Respondent declaring him as a tenant. The learned Judge has :3: made a reference to revision application preferred against the said order of the Mamlatdar. The learned Judge found that under the provisions of the said Act of 1964 the purchase price was fixed by the Joint Mamlatdar by an order dated 4th May, 1993 and thereafter the Respondent deposited the purchase price in view of purchase of the acquired land under the provisions of the said Act of 1964. The learned Judge held that the Respondent is entitled to receive the entire compensation amount as the land was vesting in the Respondent on the date of the notification of acquisition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed out that the Respondent has not entered into the witness box. He pointed out that an application was made on 9th December, 2009 at Exhibit 26 at the stage of hearing of the final arguments in the reference that the documents produced by the Respondent namely the order of Mamlatdar and other relevant documents be exhibited. He submitted that no order has been passed on the said application and in any case, the documents have not been proved. He invited my attention to the relevant Rules of Order XII and XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Code ). He submitted that without complying with the requirements of the rules contained in Order XIII of the said Code, :4: the documents could not have been read in evidence. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Durgashankar S. Trivedi and others V/s Babubhai Bhulabhai Parekh ( AIR 2003 Bombay 487 ). He submitted that mere filing of the documents is not enough. He urged that by examining appropriate witnesses, the documents are required to be proved. He submitted that, therefore, there was no legal evidence adduced by the Respondent on record of the case and thus the Respondent did not discharge the burden on him. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment and award. He has placed on record the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2001 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 49 of 2001. He pointed out that the said First Appeal was between the same parties relating to a part of the same survey No. 102. He pointed out that this Court upheld the title of the Respondent as a tenant purchaser under the said Act of 1964. He submitted that the present appeal will be governed by the said decision of Division Bench of this Court. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. On the basis of an order passed by the Mamlatdar in Tenancy Case :5: No. 3/77, the Respondent was declared as a tenant in respect of land surveyed under survey No. 102/1. The said order was confirmed in revision. The second order relied upon by the learned Trial Court is the order of the Joint Mamlatdar by which in exercise of powers under Section 18C of the said Act of 1964, the price of the land surveyed under survey No. 102/1 was fixed. Another document placed on record is a certificate of purchase under sub-section (1) of Section 18H of the said Act of 1964, by which the Respondent is declared as owner of the land surveyed under survey No. 102/1 admeasuring 3,74,000 square metres. 7. In the impugned judgment and award, the finding recorded by the learned Judge is that on the basis of the aforesaid orders passed under the provisions of the said Act of 1964, the Respondent being the owner is entitled to receive the compensation. The learned Judge has made a reference of another decision in Land Acquisition Case No. 28/81 which was filed under Section 30 of the said Act. In the said case, the compensation was ordered to be paid to the present Respondent. 8. As pointed out earlier, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent has placed on record a true copy of the :6: judgment and order of this Court dated 30th April, 2001 in First Appeal No. 49 of 2001. The judgment discloses that the issue involved in the said Appeal was as regards the title of a part of the land under survey No. 102 which is the subject matter of the present Appeal. The area of 3,58,730 square metres was the subject matter of the said Appeal out of total area of 3,74,000 square metres of the land bearing survey No. 102/1. Thus, the issue of title arose in the said Appeal to which the attorney of the Appellant - Communidade is a party. After considering the order passed in tenancy case by the Mamlatdar as well as the order passed in favour of the Respondent fixing the purchase price under Section 18C of the said Act of 1964, the Division Bench held that the Respondent herein has become deemed purchaser on the tillers' day. The Division Bench also made a reference to the certificate of purchase issued to the Respondent herein. Thus, what is held by the Division Bench is that the Respondent herein became the deemed purchaser under the provisions of the said Act of 1964 in respect of the very land bearing survey No. 102/1. 9. Apart from the fact that the decision of the Division Bench on the issue of title is binding on the parties, it must be noted that the documents placed on record by the Respondent were the :7: certified copy of the public documents. In the statement of claim filed in the reference, a specific contention has been raised by the Respondent regarding purchase under the provisions of the said Act of 1964. In the application at Exhibit 26 filed by the Respondent, it was pointed out that he has produced in the Court the documents relied upon by him in support of his case with an accurate list thereof at the stage of production of documents which documents are already taken on record of the above case. It was pointed out that the said documents are the photo copies of the certified copies of the judicial and public record which are admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The impugned judgment and award was passed on 27th December, 1999. On 2nd February, 1996 the list of documents was filed by the Respondent at Exhibit 10. The Roznama dated 2nd February, 1996 shows that along with the list of documents at Exhibit 10, the copies of the said documents were filed by the Respondent and time was sought orally by the Advocate for the Respondent to produce the originals. Thus, this is not a case where the documents were belatedly produced and the same were already on record on 2nd February, 1996. :8: 10. Apart from all this, now there is a decision of the Division Bench which upholds the title and exclusive ownership of the land subject matter of dispute of the Respondent on the ground that he became the deemed purchaser under Section 18A of the said Act of 1964. In the circumstances, it is not possible to find any error in the finding recorded by the Reference Court on title. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A. S. OKA, J at*