Shri Ramrao Venkatrao Rane vs Shri Sanjay Rane and Shri Rama Yeshwant Kotkar

F.M. Reis, J.—The above Appeal challenges the judgment and Award dated 14.5.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Mapusa in Land Acquisition Case No. 135/1992.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the Government acquired land bearing No. 197/10 having an area of 520 square meters situated at Bicholim Carapur for the extension of DWC of Right Bank Main Canal of Anjune Irrigation Project vide notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the said Act.) dated 9.5.1991. In view of the dispute between the Appellant and the Respondents with regards to claim to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the dispute was referred to the learned Reference Court u/s 30 of the said Act.

By impugned judgment and award dated 14.5.2004, the compensation was ordered to be paid to the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal the Appellant has filed the above application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for adducing additional evidence. The document which was sought to be produced is an allotment in the inventory proceeding which was filed before the learned Civil Court, Bicholim upon the death of Dinocora Rau Ranes Sar Dessay of village Keri which are stated to have been held in the year 1892. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that said inventory proceeding clearly discloses the ancestry of the Appellant and the lineage is clearly mentioned therein. He further submitted that the claim of the Appellant is that the acquired land forms part of the property named ''Tambdi Mati'' and according to him 1/2 of the said property has been described in the said proceedings at item No. 149. It is further his contentions that the Respondents are also claiming the property as being known as ''Tambdi Mati'' and as such the said document is very much material for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties. Learned Counsel further submitted that he came to know about the said document only after 15.10.2010 when he contacted his step brother Shri Jaisinghrao Rane.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has disputed the said contention of the Appellant and submitted that said document is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the dispute in the present case. Learned Counsel further submitted that the acquired land does not form part of the property which has been described in the said inventory proceeding. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for production of the said document at this stage. Learned Counsel further disputed that any lineage is disclosed in the said document.

From the reply filed by the Respondent, I find that there is nothing disclosed by the Respondent that the Appellant has deliberately delayed in producing the said document. Authenticity of the said document has not been disputed though there is no material on record adduced by the Respondent to show that the Appellant was aware about the said document during the trial before the Reference Court. Though there is strong objection on the part of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent about relevancy of the said document, I find that this aspect will have to be dealt with after the said document is allowed to be produced and Respondent is duly permitted to cross examine the Appellant in respect of the said document. As the said document is an allotment in judicial proceedings and on perusal thereof, I find that a property which is known as ''Tambdi Mati'' is stated to be described in the said proceedings. There is serious dispute raised by the Respondent to the effect that the property described therein is not a part of the property which is the subject matter of the present acquisition. The said aspect will have to be considered after the Appellant are cross examined in respect of the said document. accordingly find no reason to disallow the production of the said document and as such the application for production of additional document is allowed subject to said document being proved as well as relevancy there to be established in accordance with law.

Both the learned Counsel also advanced arguments on merits in the above appeal. After hearing the learned Counsel exhaustively and on perusal of the document produced by both the sides, I have disclosed to the learned Counsel on both sides that it would be appropriate that the mater be remanded to Reference Court for deciding the reference a fresh after permitting the Respondent to cross examine the Appellant on the said document. At this stage both the learned Counsel submitted that no reasons be recorded as any reasons therein may cause prejudice to either of the parties at the hearing of the reference after remand. Both the counsel however submitted that there was another civil suit in respect of the same property which has been decreed in favor of the Respondent herein. Both the counsel further submitted that appeals have been preferred before the learned District Judge bearing Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 29 of 2010 and 79 of 2010 filed by the Appellant which are pending before the learned District Judge. The Counsels further submitted that as the dispute in the appeal as well as in the reference proceedings is pertaining to the same property, it would be appropriate that the said appeals be decided by the same learned judge and pray that order be passed accordingly. After considering the said submission of the learned Counsel and in the facts and circumstances of the above case. I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is partly allowed.

ii. Miscellaneous Civil Application no. 717/2010 is allowed. The appellant is permitted to produce the said document in accordance with law.

iii. Impugned Judgment and award dated 14.5.2004 is quashed and set aside. LAC No. 135/1992 is restored to the file of the Reference Court.

iv. Reference Court is directed to decide the reference a fresh after allowing the appellant to produce the said document and giving the respondent an opportunity for cross examining the appellant on such document. Both the parties shall be at liberty to lead additional evidence in support of their rival claim in accordance with law.

v. Learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji shall take necessary steps to place the RCA nos. 29/2010 and 179/2010 for hearing before the Reference Court.

vi. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa Panaji on 10.1.2011 at 10.00a.m

vii. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.