Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tri) 412
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
T. Amarnath Goud, J
Anjana Das Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction-2), N.F. Railway – Respondent
LA APP NO.35 OF 2022|LA APP NO.36 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Majumder, Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon
For the Respondents: B. Majumder
An appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 if such evidence was available during original proceedings and the matter has already reached finality. Remand is only appropriate if the case remains active or requires further inquiry into essential unresolved facts like ownership.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 54 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Appellate jurisdiction - Remand - Entitlement to compensation - Determination of market value - Once an appeal has reached finality through judgment and dismissal of a review petition, the appellate court cannot entertain an application for additional evidence, especially where such evidence was available during the original proceedings and was not produced due to laches on the part of the appellant. (Paras 21, 26, 27)
(B) Appeals - Scope and ambit - Appellate courts, in the exercise of original jurisdiction, have a duty to ensure that compensation is paid only to the genuine owner to prevent disbursement of public funds to unauthorized persons. (Paras 18, 19)
(C) Procedure - Remand for fresh consideration - Where an appellant has failed to produce crucial evidence while the matter was pending and allowed the final order to attain quietus, reopening the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the court's process. (Paras 20, 26)
Facts of the case:
The matters involved two separate appeals regarding land acquisition compensation enhancement. In one instance, the appeal was decided and a review petition was subsequently dismissed, meaning the issue had reached finality. In the second instance, an application for additional evidence was filed prior to the dismissal of the appeal. Following an order from a higher court, both matters were remanded for reconsideration, specifically regarding the production of additional evidence under the relevant procedural rules.
Findings of Court:
In the instance where the appeal had already reached finality before the application for additional evidence was filed, the court found that the matter could not be reopened as the previous failure to produce available documents constituted personal laches. In the other instance, to serve the interests of justice, the matter was remanded to the trial court to allow for proper framing of issues and lead evidence on ownership.
Issues: The primary issues were whether additional evidence could be introduced after the disposal of an appeal and if a remand is necessary where the litigation had already reached quietus due to the appellant's failure to produce existing evidence at the appropriate stage.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court is not obligated to entertain additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 if the evidence was previously available to the party throughout the proceedings and the matter has already attained finality. Allowing such late introduction of evidence amounts to laches and an abuse of process; however, remand remains a viable option only where the procedural history allows for a fair determination of unsettled issues like title.
Result: Appeal in the first case is dismissed; appeal in the second case is remanded to the trial court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court establishes background of land acquisition appeals and current remand mandate. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding evidence and alleged suppression of facts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. evidence admissibility, burden of proof of ownership, and finality of concluded litigation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. final adjudication dismissing appeal 35 and remanding appeal 36 for site-specific inquiry. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, learned counsel, and Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI appearing for the respondents.
2. Originally, the L.A. Appeal No.35 of 2022 was filed for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in reference to Case No. L.A. (Ref) 143 of 2019, vide judgment dated 24.03.2022 and L.A. Appeal No.36 of 2022 was filed for enhancement of the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in L.A. (Ref.) No. 176 of 2019, vide judgment dated 15.02.2022.
3. The brief facts of L.A. Appeal No.35 of 2022 is that, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respondent No.2, i.e., the L.A. Collector, acquired land for the requiring Department, N.F. Railway (Appellant No.1), for the purpose of “Construction of New Railway line from Agartala to Sabroom at Mouja Sabroom under Sabroom Sub-Division,” vide Notification No.F.9(06)-REV/ACQ/XII/12 dated 17.06.2015 and declaration No.F.9(06)-REV/ACQ/XII/12 dated 06.07.2013.
4. Total land measuring 1.20 acres belonging to the claimant-appellant was acquired. The land was under Khatian No. 1347, Hal Plot No. 512/4576 classified as ‘Tilla’ class, along with standing rubber trees and other valuable trees. The claimant-appellant demanded compensation @ Rs.40,00,000/- per kani for the land and also sought compensation for trees damaged for construction of the railway line.
5. The L.A. Collector awarded compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per kani and further awarded compensation for destruction of trees along with statutory interest. A total of Rs.8,96,275/- was awarded for the acquired 1.20 acres of land, along with solatium and statutory interest, and Rs.80,275/- for destruction/damage of rubber trees at the rate of Rs.325/- per tree.
6. The claimant-appellant raised objections before the L.A. Collector regarding inadequacy of the compensation. Accordingly, the Collector referred the matter under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for determination of market value. The learned L.A. Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2022, enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,40,000/- per kani and Rs.5,000/- per rubber tree.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the present appeal numbered as L.A. Appeal No.35 of 2022. After hearing, this Court disposed of the appeal on 26.04.2023, affirming the award dated 24.03.2022 of the learned L.A. Judge.Thereafter, the appellant filed an interlocutory application vide No. I.A. No.02 of 2023, on 19.06.2023 for adducing additional evidence. The said application was dismissed on 20.07.2023 with the observation that the main appeal had already attained finality and the litigation had reached quietus. A Review Petition No.42 of 2023 was then filed to review the judgment dated 26.04.2023. The same was dismissed as the review petitioner could not satisfy the Court regarding maintainability. It was also noted that the documents sought to be introduced were available earlier but were not produced, showing laches on the part of the petitioner.
8. The brief facts of The brief facts of L.A. Appeal No.36 of 2022 are that in accordance with the L.A. Act, the respondent No.2, i.e., the L.A. Collector, acquired land for the requiring department, N.F. Railway (appellant No.1), for construction of a new railway line from Agartala to S
