JUDGMENT :

HARKESH MANUJA, J. 

CM No.546-CI & 547-CI of 2023 in RFA No.3096 of 2017 By way of present application(s) filed under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) read with Section 151 CPC, a prayer has been made for producing certain documents on record in the form of sale deeds and site plans etc. as Annexures A-1 to A-22, by way of additional evidence and seeking exemption from filing certified copies/true typed copies thereof.

In pursuance to the notice of the application on 28.02.2023, today reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent(s)/landowner(s), the same is taken on record.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the application.

A perusal of the records shows that the sale instances sought to be produced by way of additional evidence as Annexure A-3 to A-20 are all photostat copies and thus, cannot be permitted to be produced in additional evidence. Even no effort has been made by the applicant/appellant to place on record the certified copies of such sale instances so as to draw benefit in terms of Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Besides it, the other documents sought to be produced are minutes of meeting of the District Price Fixation Committee (Annexure A-1), Site plans (Annexure A-2 & A-21), whereas the document Annexure A-22 is the master plan of New Chandigarh.

The document Annexure A-1 has no relevance at this stage as the same only relates to the proceedings of the District Level Price Fixation Committee which has already been admitted in the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector in exercise of the statutory power vested in it under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Furthermore, once the master plan of New Chandigarh is already on record, the evidence in the form of Annexure A-22 and site plan (Annexure A-2 & A-21) would not be essential for the purpose of adjudication of the case(s) in hand. Even otherwise, no reason has been given by the applicant-appellant as to why the documents were not proved on record before the learned Reference Court.

In view of above, the applications preferred at the instance of the applicant-appellant being devoid of merits are, thus dismissed.

Main Appeal(s)

[1]. Vide this common order, a bunch of 64 Regular First Appeals along with Cross-objections, details of which are given in the footnote of this judgment, are being decided as all the cases have arisen out of common acquisition/Award involving identical facts and question of law. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RFA No.3096 of 2017 and Cross-Objection No.116-CI of 2017.

[2]. By way of present appeal(s), challenge has been laid to the Award dated 14.02.2017 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Reference Court’).

[3]. Briefly stating, in the present case(s), total land measuring 335.3998 acres situated within the revenue estates of villages Hoshiarpur, Majra and Takipur was acquired vide Notifications dated 17.05.2013 and 10.09.2013 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ‘1894 Act’) respectively, for the public purpose, namely “for setting up Residential Urban Estate Phase-II, in the area of Mullanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali)”. Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the LAC’) on 31.12.2013, thereby determining the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.1,36,00,000/- per acre besides award of all other statutory benefits and interests provided under the 1894 Act.

[4]. Dis-satisfied with the LAC Award, respondent(s)/landowner(s) invoked Reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Reference Court on 14.02.2017, granting enhanced compensation at uniform rate of Rs.3,86,86,925/- per acre besides awarding all other statutory benefits/interest under the 1894 Act.

[5]. Aggriev