:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 786 OF 2011

1.Mr. Avelino Rodrigues,

son of Alex Santan Rodrigues,

age 52 years, married and

his wife,

2. Mrs. Carolina Ana Rodrigues,

Both r/o H.No.164/03,

Brittowaddo, Parra, Bardez Goa.

…

Petitioners

V e r s u s

Executive Engineer,

Works Division VII,

Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corp.

Dhargal, Pernem, Goa.

…

Respondent

Mr. G. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. S. Mahambrey, Additional Government Advocate for the

respondent.

CORAM : F. M. REIS, J

DATE: 15

^th DECEMBER, 2011

.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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.

:2:

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

:3:

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

:4:

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 t