1.heard shri g. Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and shri s. Mahambrey, learned additional government advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned counsel.

3. Shri s. Mahambrey, learned additional government advocate waives service on behalf of respondent.

4. The above petition challenges the order dated 21/10/2011 passed by the learned district judge, north goa, panaji, in land acquisition case no. 42/2009 whereby the application filed by the petitioners to produce documents namely the settlement report received by the petitioners under right to information act, a letter from the bank and an extract of notification of the government of india under section 48 of income tax act, came to be rejected.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order and pointed out the said documents are very much relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy as according to him the said documents support the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel further pointed out that during the course of the evidence of aw1 both the said documents were marked x-x3 for identification and as such the respondent was very well aware of the fact that the petitioners are relying upon the said documents. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioners have obtained the certified copies of the said documents under right to information act after the evidence of aw1 was recorded. The learned counsel further pointed out that the notification relied upon by the petitioners is a government notification under the income tax act and as such the question of doubting the authenticity thereof does not arise at all. Apart from that, the learned counsel pointed out that the bank letter was showing the lending rate at the relevant time. Learned counsel further pointed out that the learned judge whilst passing the impugned order had exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the said documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. As such, learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, shri s. Mahambrey, learned additional government advocate has supported the impugned order. The learned addl. Government advocate has pointed out that the said documents were already marked x-x-3 for identification and considering that the petitioners have not challenged the said order, the question of seeking leave to produce the said documents at this stage does not arise at all. The learned counsel further pointed out that the said documents have no relevancy for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy and as such the question of granting any leave to produce the said documents would not arise at all. The learned counsel further pointed out that the said documents are not certified copies issued by the government officers and as such the question of invoking the provisions of section 78 of the evidence act does not arise at all. The learned counsel as such submits that there is no merit in the above petition and same deserves to be rejected.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of records, the settlement report was a true copy issued to the petitioners under right to information act. The said document was issued by the public information officer of the state government. The said document has been obtained by the petitioners by due process of law and as such the question of petitioners being precluded from producing the said document does not arise at all. The relevancy or otherwise of the said document would have to be considered at the time of appreciating the evidence on record. It is not open to the learned judge to go into the relevancy at this stage when it is not disputed that the documents were marked for identification. The said document was marked for identification during the examinat