An appellate court may remand a matter for the limited purpose of adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when such evidence is essential for the proper determination of the real market value of acquired land.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The instant cross-objections have been preferred, in RFA No.246 of 2011, by the cross-objector/respondent, who was petitioner before the learned Reference Court, under Order 41, Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for grant of adequate compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 lacs per bigha irrespective of classification of the land with all statutory benefits. As per the cross-objector, he had filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Learned Reference Court, vide award dated 31.03.2009 enhanced the market value of the land at Rs. 5 Lacs per bigha irrespective of classification of land by taking into consideration that the land has been acquired for the purpose of commercial activities, i.e. for establishment of Hydro Electric Project. It is further averred that the learned Reference Court has not taken into consideration that the land which has been acquired for the construction of said project was for commercial purpose and aim and object of the same was to earn the profit for years together. It has also been averred that Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into consideration the fact that the land of adjoining area i.e. Sui Nichli has been sold at Rs. 6 to 7 Lacs per bigha and while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector has deducted Rs. 66,000/- per bigha. Therefore, cross-objector is also entitled to take advantage of the Sale Deeds, which were executed in the adjoining village i.e. Sui Nichli. The learned Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence and real market value existing in the acquired land, as such, prayer for enhancement/modification of the impugned award has been made.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the cross-objector, learned Senior Counsel for the non-cross-objector and have also gone through the material available on record.

3. The perusal of the record reveals that learned Reference Court had assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 5 lacs per bigha vide impugned award dated 25.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved against the said award, the respondent-NTPC filed an appeal before this Court i.e. RFA No. 246 of 2011. Alongwith the appeal, the claimant also filed filed Cross Objections, which were registered as Cross Objections No. 40 of 2014. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the present appeal alongwith other connected matters, filed by the respondent-NTPC, as well as cross objections vide judgment dated 20.04.2017. The said judgment was assailed by the claimant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 16.07.2019, passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5557-5559 of 2019, the appeals filed by the claimants were allowed and the case was remanded back to this Court for deciding the cross-objections filed by the appellant (landowner) in accordance with law.

4. This Court vide order dated 21.04.2026, passed in CMP No. 11491/2014, allowed the application filed by the applicant/cross-objector under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence and permitted the applicant/cross-objector to prove Sale Deeds No. 381 of 2000 dated 28.06.2000, 324 of 2000 dated 02.06.2000 and 618 of 2000 dated 21.11.2000 in accordance with law. Therefore, in order to prove the aforesaid Sale Deeds, the case is required to be remanded back to the learned Reference Court.

5. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., to permit the applicant/cross-objector to prove Sale Deeds No. 381 of 2000 dated 28.06.2000, 324 of 2000 dated 02.06.2000 and 618 of 2000 dated 21.11.2000 in accordance with law, after giving him reasonable opportuni