2006 Supreme(Raj) 993
Supreme Court
Honble B.P. SINGH, J. Honble ARUN KUMAR, J.
State of Gujarat & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Kumar Parshottambhai Desai (D) by L.Rs. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7898-7900 of 2002
Decided On : April 10, 2006
Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Abhishek Mishra, Ramesh Singh and Hemantika Wahi, Advocates, with him, for Appellants Sorabjee, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocates, Tushar Mehta, Mahesh Agarwal, Nikhil Sakardande, Nakul Dewan, Rishi Agarwal, Mani Krishnan, E.C. Agr
Headnote:C.P.C., Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) – production of additional evidence in Appellate Court – Suit for decleration of right, title and interest over the land in dispute praying that suit land belonged to State Govt. – State Govt. not pleaded that documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts or that such evidence was not within its knowledge – Documents sought to be produced were part of Govt. record – Held – Provision of Order 41 Rule 27 can not be invoked by a party at the stage of appeal to fill up lacunae in his case.
(2). Before adverting to the facts of the case it is necessary to briefly notice the facts and the proceedings which preceded the filing of the suit by the State of Gujarat.
(3). The respondents claimed to be the owners of 138 Vighas 19 Vasas of land recorded under various zerif numbers in the Fesal Patrak of the year 1892. According to the respondents out of the aforesaid lands, lands admesuring 85 Vighas 1 Vasa were acquired by the then State of Baroda. Thus an area 53 Vighas and 18 Vasas remained in the ownership and possession of the respondents.
(4). On September 23, 1960 one J. Patel applied to the Commissioner of Baroda Municipal Corporation for grant of a plot out of the lands which were in possession of the respondents. The respondents objected and filed an application before the Commissioner claiming ownership of the aforesaid lands. Ultimately the application of the respondents was referred to the City Survey Officer, Baroda for enquiry. By his report of February 19, 1963 the City Survey Officer reported that the lands belonged to the Government and that the respondents had no claim over the said lands. The Collector of Baroda, however, ordered an enquiry under Section 37(2) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code in respect of the claim of the respondents and ultimately the matter was enquired into by the Assistant Collector, who reported that the lands in question belonged to the respondents. This report was submitted on June 1, 1964. However, the Collector suo motu exercising revisional jurisdiction set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed fresh enquiry. The Assistant Collector submitted his report on November 30, 1966 and found that the respondents had failed to establish their title and that the lands in question were Government lands. An appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Collector whereafter the respondents preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, Vadodara. By order dated April 7, 1980 the Deputy Collector, Vadodara again dismissed the application filed by the respondents. The respondents appealed to the Tribunal but the same was not entertained and they were directed to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. Accordingly the respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector, Vadodara which was dismissed by order dated May 14, 1983. Thereafter in the year 1990, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and prayed for condonation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay, having regard to the cause shown, and after hearing the parties by his order dated November 29, 1991 held that the lands in question measuring 53 Vighas 17 Vasas were in the ownership and possession of the respondents.
(5). In August 1992, the respondents herein filed a suit praying that they should not be prevented from raising construction on the lands in dispute. They also obtained an ad interim injunction but the same was vacated against which the respondents moved the High Court. When the stay matter was pending before the High Court, the State of Gujarat filed the instant suit which ultimately came to be disposed of by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (SC), Vad