Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO, M.N.RAO
Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Vijayawada - Appellant
Versus
Chigurupati Umamaheswara Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 06-15-92
LAND ACQUISITION - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CONDITIONS - ORDER 41, RULE 27, CPC - INTERPRETATION - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED ONLY IF IT IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURT TO PRONOUNCE A JUST AND EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT - NEGLIGENCE OR WRONG ADVICE OF COUNSEL OR FAILURE TO UTILIZE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL STAGE ARE NOT VALID REASONS FOR NOT EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER RULE 27 (1) (B) WHEN THE STATE IS A PARTY AND MISCONDUCT IS ALLEGED AGAINST THE COUNSEL AND OFFICIALS ENTRUSTED WITH THE LITIGATION.
Fact of the Case:
In two separate land acquisition cases, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) and the claimants filed petitions seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The LAO sought to introduce six documents, two of which were prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the remaining four were post-notification. The claimants sought to introduce two sale agreements and one sale deed as additional evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the LAO in respect of the documents prior to the notification under Section 4(1) should be admitted as they were necessary to enable the court to pronounce a just and effective judgment. The court found that the conduct of the counsel and officials entrusted with the litigation at the stage of Section 18 proceedings and the allegation of misconduct against them constituted special reasons which could not be ignored. However, the court declined to admit the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the LAO in respect of the documents relating to the post-notification period, as they were not necessary to enable the court to pronounce a just and effective judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether additional evidence can be admitted under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) CPC if it is necessary to enable the court to pronounce a just and effective judgment? 2. Whether negligence or wrong advice of counsel or failure to utilize the opportunity to lead evidence at the trial stage are valid reasons for not exercising discretion under Rule 27(1)(b) when the State is a party and misconduct is alleged against the counsel and officials entrusted with the litigation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, additional evidence can be admitted under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) CPC if it is necessary to enable the court to pronounce a just and effective judgment. The requirement of additional evidence by the appellate court "to enable it to pronounce judgment" under Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) necessarily implies requirement to pronounce a just and effective judgment, but not a one-sided one. 2. No, negligence or wrong advice of counsel or failure to utilize the opportunity to lead evidence at the trial stage are not valid reasons for not exercising discretion under Rule 27(1)(b) when the State is a party and misconduct is alleged against the counsel and officials entrusted with the litigation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the LAO's petitions in part, permitting the LAO to bring on record the four documents prior to the notification under Section 4(1) and directing the trial court to record evidence in this regard. The court dismissed the claimants' petitions.
( 2 ) AS regards the 9 acres and 30 cents of land acquired for providing house-sites to weaker sections, the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 05-1-1979, and the Land Acquisition Officer, after following the procedure prescribed by the Act, passed the award on 26-3-1981 determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 34,200. 00 per acre exclusive of other permissible statutory benefits. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court in O. P. No. 266/81 enhanced the market value to Rs. 1,52,875. 00 per acre exclusive of the other statutory benefits. A. S. No. 506/ 83 was preferred against the above O. P.
( 3 ) THE claimants as well as the Land. Acquisition Officer have filed these miscellaneous petitions seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, in respect of the 110 acres of land acquired by the Housing Board, six documents are filed as additional evidence; in regard to the 9 acres and 30 cents of land acquired for providing house-sites to weaker sections, two documents are filed as additional evidence. On behalf of the claimants two sale agreements dated 27-4-1982 and one sale deed of the year 1988 are filed as additional evidence.
( 4 ) ALTHOUGH both the sides have filed applications for permission to adduce additional evidence, in so far as the petitions filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer are concerned, the same are opposed vehemently by the learned counsel for the claimants. We shall now refer to the nature of the documents filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the iwo extents of the land. Two extracts of registered documents bearing document Nos. 5576/79 and 5579/ 79, dated 20-8-1979 are prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The other four documents relate to the post-notification period; two bear the date 30-12-1982 and the other two bear the dates 28-6-1983 and 29-12-1983. In regard to the awards covering the land acquired for weaker sections, the documents are dated 14-2-1977 and 02-5-1977.
( 5 ) WHAT provoked the Land Acquisition Officer to file the applications for permission to lead the "additional evidence needs to be mentioned. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions it was averred by the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, that on behalf of the Land Acquisition O
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
