Judgment 1. This appeal emanates from the Judgment & Award dated 14/6/2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 134 of 1999. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal, in short, are as follows: Land was acquired for the purpose of construction of new B.G line for Konkan Railway in Margao city of Salcete Taluka (additional area). This included an area of 110 square meters from Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 and an area of 959 square meters from Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266, both situated in Margao city. By Award dated 20.11.1998, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO, for short) awarded an amount of Rs.1,724.72 paise for the land acquired from Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 and an amount of Rs. 15,036.44 paise for the land acquired from Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. Since there was a dispute between the appellants and the respondent regarding the apportionment of compensation in respect of said acquired land, the same was referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court. That gave rise to the said Land Acquisition Case No.134/1999. 3. The appellants herein are the Parties No. 1 and 2, whereas the respondent herein is the Party No. 3 in the said Land Acquisition Case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case. 4. The Parties No. 1 and 2, in their Written Statement, filed before the Reference Court, alleged as follows: The land under Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No. 2, Smt. Aurora do Carmo Barreto Xavier and she is entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the said land. The Party No. 3, Sadanand V.Shirgaonkar has no right of whatsoever nature to the said land either as tenant or otherwise and he has sworn an affidavit dated 27/2/1992 to that effect. The land under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. The Party No. 3, Sadanand V.Shirgaonkar has no right of whatsoever nature to the said land either as tenant or otherwise and he has sworn an affidavit dated 27/2/1992 to that effect. The land under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No.1, Manuel Barreto Xavier and he is entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the said land and the Party No. 3 has no right of whatsoever nature to the said land either as tenant or otherwise. The Party No. 3 had filed an application for declaration as tenant in respect of the said land under Case No. JMIV/TNC/54/92 in the Court of Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao, against the Parties No. 1 and 2, which case was dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 17/4/2002. The Party No. 3 has not cultivated the said land under Chalta nos.12 and 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 at any time and his name has been wrongly recorded in the survey records. 5. The Party No. 3 also filed his Written Statement and he alleged as follows: He is entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 8750.64 paise awarded in respect of acquisition of his land in the property bearing survey nos.266/22 (part) & 266/12 (part) situated at Margao. By Judgment and Order dated 10/7/2001, of the Joint Mamlatdar-III, in Case No.JM/III/TNC/62/2000, he has been declared as deemed tenant of the paddy field surveyed under Chalta no. 22 of P.T.S no. 266 of Margao city belonging to the Party No.1. Since he has been declared by the competent Court as deemed tenant, the said compensation of Rs. 8750.64 paise should be ordered to be paid to him. 6. After framing of the issues, the Parties No. 1 & 2 examined Manuel Barreto Xavier (Party No. 1) as AW.1. He produced the Special Power of Attorney given to him by Party No. 2, as Exhibit 14. He also produced the Forms “B” of the survey record pertaining to Chalta no. 22 and 12 of P.T.S. no. 266 as Exhibit 15 colly. The order dated 17/4/2002 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao, in Case No. JM-IV/TNC/54/92, has been produced as Exhibit 16. AW.1 also produced the Affidavit of the Party No. 3 as Exhibit 17. The Parties No.1 and 2 have also examined one witness by name Francisco Almeida. 22 and 12 of P.T.S. no. 266 as Exhibit 15 colly. The order dated 17/4/2002 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Salcete, Margao, in Case No. JM-IV/TNC/54/92, has been produced as Exhibit 16. AW.1 also produced the Affidavit of the Party No. 3 as Exhibit 17. The Parties No.1 and 2 have also examined one witness by name Francisco Almeida. The Party No. 3 examined his son (Power of Attorney holder) namely Shekhar Sadanand Shirgaonkar, as AW3. He has produced the Judgment of the Joint Mamlatdar Salcete in Case no. JM/III/TNC/62/2000 as Exhibit 25; the survey record of Chalta nos.12 and 22 of P.T.S no. 266 as Exhibit 26 and the General Power of Attorney given to him by his father that is Party No. 3 as Exhibit 27. The Party No. 3 also examined one witness by name Mr. Prabhakar Hawaldar, the Inspector of Surveys and Land Record, City Survey, Margao, as AW.4. AW.4 has produced the certificate dated 26.7.2004, issued by him, as Exhibit 30. 7. Learned Reference Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record, found that the Parties No.1 and 2 have not produced any title documents pertaining to both the acquired lands and, therefore, they have not proved the ownership in respect of the same. The Reference Court further held that by producing on record the judgment dated 10/7/2001 passed by the Joint Mamlatdar, the Party No. 3 has proved that he is the tenant of Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. Therefore, the Reference Court held that the Party No. 3 is entitled for entire compensation of Rs.15,036.44 towards the Chalta no. 22 of P.T.S. no.266. Since the SLAO had already paid to him the amount of Rs.8,010.52 paise, the Reference Court ordered that the balance amount of Rs.7,025.92 along with interest thereon, if any, shall be paid to the Party No. 3. The Reference Court further directed that the remaining balance amount along with interest be forwarded to the SLAO for necessary action as per law. 8. The Parties No.1 and 2 are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award. 9. ShriC. Mascarenhas, Learned Advocate, on behalf of Parties No. 1 and 2, argued that the Party No. 3 had filed a Tenancy Case in respect of the same property against Parties No.1 and 2 and the same was dismissed for default. 8. The Parties No.1 and 2 are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award. 9. ShriC. Mascarenhas, Learned Advocate, on behalf of Parties No. 1 and 2, argued that the Party No. 3 had filed a Tenancy Case in respect of the same property against Parties No.1 and 2 and the same was dismissed for default. He pointed out that no restoration application was filed and hence the judgment became final. He then invited my attention to the Affidavit which is at Exhibit 17 by which the Party No. 3 has admitted that he is not the tenant of Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no.266 and that he is cultivating the paddy field under Chalta no. 21 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. According to Shri Mascarenhas, as against the Parties No.1 and 2, these are conclusive facts. He further pointed out that in paragraph 2 of the Written statement filed by the Party No.3, he has admitted that chalta no. 22 of P.T.S. no. 266 belongs to the Party No.1. He pointed out that the Judgment dated 10.7.2001 under Exhibit 25 is ex-parte and since admittedly the said property under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No.1, the said judgment under Exhibit 25 which is against the Party No. 2 is ab-initio void as Party No. 2 is admittedly not the owner of Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. The learned Advocate for Parties No.1 and 2 further contended that the Party No. 3 did not personally step into the witness box and the Power of Attorney holder who has stepped into the witness box has no personal knowledge. Shri Mascarenhas further argued that there was absolutely no dispute about chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 and, therefore, the compensation pertaining to the said land ought to have been awarded to the Party No. 2. He showed from Form “B” which is a part of Exhibit 15 colly that the name of Maria Manuela Barreto Xavier has been recorded as occupant of Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no.22, who is the sister of Party No. 2. He further invited my attention to the Affidavit which is at Exhibit 17, which shows that the Party No. 3 does not claim any right to chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. 12 of P.T. Sheet no.22, who is the sister of Party No. 2. He further invited my attention to the Affidavit which is at Exhibit 17, which shows that the Party No. 3 does not claim any right to chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. He then pointed out that the Form “B” of Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no.266 shows the name of Caitan Xavier Barreto who is the father of Party No.1, as occupant of the same. According to Shri Mascarenhas, the certificate at Exhibit 26 is not a survey record. 10. Mr. Mascarhenas has relied upon the following citations: (i) “SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and others V. World Tanker Carrier Corporation and another ” {AIR 2000 Bombay 34); (ii) “Smt. Shamlata Wd/o Manohar Raut & Ors. Vs. Vishweshwara Tukaram Giripunje” [2008 (4) AIR Bom. Rule 82.] and (iii) “Jacinto Minguel De Quadros Barreto & others Vs. Haridas Maruti Kamat and another.”[2006(2) Bom. C.R. 84]. 11. On the contrary, Shri Prasheen Lotlikar, learned Advocate for Party No. 3 argued that Party No. 3 is not interested n Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. He contended that the judgment which is at Exhibit 25 duly proves that Party No. 3 is the enant of Chalta no. 22 of P.T.S. no. 266 and since the judgment is passed by the competent authority under the Agricultural Tenancy ct, the same has been rightly relied upon by the Reference Court. He further argued that the said judgment speaks for itself and, herefore, the inadvertent mistake in paragraph 2 of the Written statement of Party No. 3 and the Affidavit-in-Evidence of his ower of attorney holder is bound to be overlooked. 12. I have gone through the entire material on record in the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 13. The first point that arises for determination is whether the Reference Court was right in forwarding the balance amount along with interest that is compensation pertaining to the acquired land from chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 to the SLAO and if not, who is entitled to receive the said amount. 14. In the Written statement filed by Parties No. 1 & 2, it is specifically stated that the land under Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No. 2. 266 to the SLAO and if not, who is entitled to receive the said amount. 14. In the Written statement filed by Parties No. 1 & 2, it is specifically stated that the land under Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No. 2. In the Written statement of Party No.3, the compensation in respect to the acquired land from Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no.266 has not at all been claimed. In the Affidavit -in-Evidence filed in lieu of Examination-in-Chief by Aw.1, that is, Party No.1, he has stated that the land under Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no.266 belongs to the Party No. 2, Smt. Aurora Do Carmo Barreto Xavier and she is entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the said land, In the Cross examination of Aw.1, the Party No. 3 has not claimed right to Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no.266. In fact, Aw.1 has produced the Affidavit of the Party no. 3 which is at Exhibit 17 wherein he has stated that he is not a tenant nor he is cultivating paddy in the portion of Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no.266. In his own Affidavit-in-Evidence filed in lieu of Examination-in-Chief, the Party No. 3 has not claimed the compensation awarded for the acquired land from Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. In his Cross examination, Aw.3, the Power of Attorney holder of Party No. 3 has stated that they have not obtained any declaration of tenancy from the Mamlatdar in respect of Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. The SLAO had made reference to learned Reference Court because there was a dispute about apportionment of the compensation awarded in respect of the acquired land from Chaltas no. 12 and 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 amongst the parties. Therefore, one of the parties was certainly entitled to receive the compensation for Chalta no. 12 of P.T.Sheet no. 266. In view of the discussion supra, I am of the view that the learned Reference Court erred in holding that none of the parties is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. I hold that Party No. 2 namely Smt. Aurora do Carmo Barreto Xavier is entitled to receive the said compensation. 15. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. I hold that Party No. 2 namely Smt. Aurora do Carmo Barreto Xavier is entitled to receive the said compensation. 15. The next point for determination is as to which of the parties is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. 16. It is true that by order dated 17.4.2002, the learned Joint Mamlatdar-IV of Salcete Taluka in Case no. JMIV/ TNC/54/1992 has dismissed the application. The said order is at Exhibit 16. The said case was filed by the Party No. 3 against the Parties No. 1 and 2. However, the order does not mention as to what is the subject matter of the said case and as to what were the prayers in the said case. The application filed by the Party No. 3, in respect of which the said case was registered, has not been produced on record. Since the said order is not on merits, even otherwise, it cannot operate as res judicata. The Power of Attorney holder of the Party No. 3 that is the son of the Party No. 3 has produced on record a judgment and order passed by the Joint Mamaltdar of Salcete in Case No. JM-III/TNC/62/2000 which clearly states that the same would dispose of the application filed by the Party No. 3 under section 7-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, praying to declare him as tenant of the paddy field surveyed under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao city belonging to the opponent therein. The opponent is Shri Rosendo Xavier Barreto (Deceased) represented by his sole legal heir and representative: Smt. Aurora do Carmo Barreto Xavier. It is revealed from the said judgment that the opponent remained absent, though duly served and, therefore, based upon the deposition of the Party No. 3, his application for tenancy was allowed. The Party No. 3 has been declared as deemed tenant of the paddy field surveyed under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao city, belonging to the opponent in the said case, that is to the Party No. 2. 17. The said judgment and order (Exhibit 25) has been passed by the competent authority under Agricultural Tenancy Act and the same has not been set aside till today. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao city, belonging to the opponent in the said case, that is to the Party No. 2. 17. The said judgment and order (Exhibit 25) has been passed by the competent authority under Agricultural Tenancy Act and the same has not been set aside till today. The Parties No.1 and 2, who are cousins, have filed a common written statement. However, they say that the land under Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No. 2, whereas the land under Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 which is subject matter of the said tenancy case, belongs to the Party No.1. In the Affidavit-in-Evidence, AW.1, the Party No.1 has stated that the same thing. However, the Parties No.1 and 2 have not produced any title document to prove their ownership respectively to Chalta nos. 22 and 12 of P.T Sheet no. 266. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the Parties No. 1 and 2 that in the Written Statement filed by the Party No. 3, it is admitted that Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No. 1. In the case of “Jacinto Minguel De Quadros Barretto” (supra), it has been held that the nature of the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act are civil proceedings, in the nature of an inter-pleader’s suit and parties are required to plead their case and lead evidence in support of the same. It has been held that the ordinary rule of pleadings that no amount of evidence can be looked into in support of a plea not taken ought to be followed in such cases as well. However, what has been pleaded in paragraph 2 of the Written statement of the Party no. 3 as well as in paragraph 2 of the Affidavit-in-Evidence of the Power of Attorney holder of the Party no. 3 is that by the Judgment and order dated 10/7/2001 of the Joint Mamlatdar-III in Case No.JM/III/TNC/62/2000, the Party No.3 has been declared as the deemed tenant of the paddy field surveyed under chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao City, belonging to the Party No.1. Therefore, there is no independent averment made by the Party No. 3 that Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No.1. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao City, belonging to the Party No.1. Therefore, there is no independent averment made by the Party No. 3 that Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 belongs to the Party No.1. There is an averment regarding the Judgment and Order dated 10/7/2001 in Case No. JM/III/TNC/62/2000. The said Judgment and order is a public document which speaks for itself. It can be certainly said that there is inadvertent mistake in making the statement as far as the contents said judgment and order is concerned, which would not render the said Judgment and order, invalid. 18. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, none of the parties have produced the title document pertaining to Chaltas no.12 and 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266. Since the Parties No. 1 and 2 claim to be the owners of the said holdings, it was their duty to produce the title documents so as to prove that the declaration of tenancy obtained by the Party No. 3 from the competent authority is ab-initio void. 19. The Special Power of Attorney which is at Exhibit 14 given by the Party No. 2 to the Party No.1 reveals that Party No. 1 is the son of late Caitano Barreto Xavier, whereas, Party No. 2 is unmarried daughter of late Rozendo Barreto. Party No. 1 is the cousin brother of Party No.2. In Form “B” of Survey and Land Records pertaining to Chalta 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao City, which is a part of Exhibit 15 colly, produced by AW.1 (Party No.1), the name of Caitano Xavier Barreto has been shown as occupant. But the said survey record is specifically stated to be provisional. Hence, no presumptive value under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code can be given to the same. However, in the Area Book of Margao city, the extract of which is at Exhibit 26, produced by Aw.3, the Power of Attorney holder of Party No. 3, the name of Rozendo Xavier Barreto (father of Party No. 2) has been shown as occupant and the name of Sadanand V. Shirgaonkar (Party No. 3) has been shown as tenant, in respect of chalta NO. 22 of P.T. Sheet No. 266. 22 of P.T. Sheet No. 266. Aw.4, Shri Prabhakar Hawaldar, who is the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, City Survey Margao has issued a certificate which is at Exhibit 30 stating that the Form issued by his Office in respect of Chaltas no.12 and 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 from the Area Book is correct entry and that the Area Book is maintained specifically only in respect of tenanted paddy field. He has clarified that Form “B” has been wrongly issued by his Office due to oversight. The said certificate from the Area Book of Margao city is the one which is at Exhibit 26. Though, this record is also stated to be provisional, however, with regard to this record, there is confirming oral evidence of Aw.4, Prabhakar Hawaldar and his certificate of Survey and Land Records, City Survey Margao stating that in both chaltas no.12 and 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266, the name of Sadanand Shirgaonkar has been recorded as tenant. The said Form from the Area Book (Exhibit 26); the certificate in Exhibit 30 and the Judgment and Order of the Joint Mamlatdar which is at Exhibit 25, read together, certainly prove that the Party No. 3 is entitled to the compensation in respect of the acquired land from Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao City. 20. In the case of “SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd.” (supra), it has been held that a declaration given under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is binding only between parties and the same is a declaration in personam and not in rem. In the case of “Shamlata” (supra), it has been held that where the present defendant was not a party to the previous suit, the judgment in that suit would neither fall within the scope of Section 40 nor provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code would be applicable. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, none of the above citations is applicable. 21. Besides the above, it is seen that part of the compensation in respect of the acquired land has been already paid to the Party No. 3 by the SLAO, as he was found to be in possession of the acquired land when its possession was taken over. 22. 21. Besides the above, it is seen that part of the compensation in respect of the acquired land has been already paid to the Party No. 3 by the SLAO, as he was found to be in possession of the acquired land when its possession was taken over. 22. In view of the above, I hold that it is the Party No.3 who is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of Margao City. 23. The impugned Judgment and Order, in so far as it pertains to Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266, is concerned, in my view, is in accordance with the settled principles of law but the same is erroneous in so far as it pertains to Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of the City of Margao. Therefore, interference with the same is warranted, partly. 24. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (a) The appeal is partly allowed. (b) The impugned judgment and award, in so far as it pertains to Chalta no. 12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266, is quashed and set aside. The amount of compensation awarded in respect of Chalta no.12 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 of the City of Margao shall be paid to the Party No. 2, Smt. Aurora do Carmo Barreto. (c) The impugned Judgment and award in respect of Chalta no. 22 of P.T. Sheet no. 266 is maintained. (d) No order as to costs.