Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1760 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 27 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Additional evidence – Land Reference – Admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon relevancy to issue on hand, or on fact, whether applicant had opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not appellate court requires evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause – High Court while considering application for additional evidence has not appreciated fact that documents which were sought to be produced as additional evidence might have a bearing on determination of fair market value of acquired land – Except sale deed dated 29.12.1987, which was rejected by courts below, no further evidence was on record to determine fair market value of acquired land – It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose – Claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to fair market value of his land – Where additional evidence sought to be adduced removes cloud of doubt over the case and evidence has a direct and important bearing on main issue in suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed – High Court ought to have allowed application for additional evidence – However, even after permitting to adduce additional evidence, applicant has to prove existence, authenticity and genuineness of documents including contents thereof, in accordance with law and for said purpose, matter is to be remanded to Reference Court – Order passed by High Court rejecting I.A. for adducing additional evidence to bring on record documents mentioned in said application quashed and set aside – I.A. filed before High Court for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC allowed. (Paras 3.1, 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in First Appeal No. 44/2007, by which High Court has dismissed the said First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein-original claimant, original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Matter is remanded to Reference Court. Land Acquisition Case No. 36/1989 is ordered to be restored on the file of the learned Reference Court – Subordinate Judge- II, Daltonganj.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
Appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (!) [1000754280003][1000754280004]
The appellate court may permit additional evidence in exceptional circumstances, where it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.[IMPORTANT POINT] (!) [1000754280003][1000754280004]
Admissibility does not depend on relevancy to the issue, or whether the applicant had an opportunity to adduce it earlier, but on whether the appellate court needs it for judgment or substantial cause.[IMPORTANT POINT][1000754280003]
General principle: appellate court should not travel outside lower court record, but Order 41 Rule 27 provides exception if evidence removes doubt, has direct bearing on main issue, and justice requires it. (!) [1000754280003]
Even after permission, applicant must prove documents' existence, authenticity, genuineness, and contents per law.[1000754280004][1000754280005][1000754280006]
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in First Appeal No. 44/2007, by which the High Court has dismissed the said First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein-original claimant, the original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘1894 Act’) was issued proposing to acquire the land of the original land owner vide notification dated 01.10.1980 for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 92,121/- for the entire acquired land. A reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act at the instance of the land owner being Reference Case No. 36/1989 came to be rejected.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 36/1989 refusing to enhance the amount of compensation, the appellant herein-original claimant-land owner preferred an appeal before the High Court being First Appeal No. 44/2007. Before the High Court, the appellant herein filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) and proposed to bring on record certain sale deeds and the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 23.08.2006 and 21.09.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 12/1989; 27/1989; 32/1989 and 52/1989, which, according to the appellant, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value. The said application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC being I.A. No. 1384/2019 has been dismissed by the High Court while deciding the appeal, by the impugned judgment and order after rejecting I.A. No. 1384/2019, thus by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the First Appeal.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the First Appeal as well as rejecting I.A. No. 1384/2019, the appellant herein-original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
3.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the Reference Court as well as before the High Court, the only evidence produced on record was the sale deed dated 29.12.1987 which was rejected from being considered. Hence, as such, there was no other evidence/material on record to arrive at a fair market value for the acquired land. Therefore, before the High Court, the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence to bring on record the sale deeds and certified copy of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court which, according to the appellant, would have a direct bearing on the determination of the fair market value of the acquired land. The High Court has rejected the said application by observing that the application does not satisfy the requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 96 of the CPC. The High Court has also observed that the appellant has failed to establish that notwithstanding exercise of due diligence, such additional evidence was not within his knowledge and could not after exercise of due diligence be produced before the courts below. However, the High Court while considering the application for additional evidence has not appreciated the fact that the documents which were sought to be produced as additional evidence might have a bearing on determination of the fair market value of the acquired land. It is to be noted that except the sale deed dated 29.12.1987, which was rejected by the courts below, no further evidence was on record to determine the fair market value of the acquired land. It was a case of awarding of fair compensation to the land owner whose land has been acquired for public purpose. It cannot be disputed that the claimant whose land is acquired is entitled to the fair market val
Additional evidence – Admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon relevancy to issue on hand, or on fact, whether applicant had opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stag....
The decision on the admissibility and relevance of additional evidence in a land acquisition case should be made by the Reference Court, and the matter should be considered expeditiously.
Claimant in land acquisition reference must prove higher compensation through cogent evidence including valuer's testimony; unexamined valuation reports inadmissible under evidence rules.
Acquisition of land – In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing market value.
The court emphasized that the highest value among comparable sales must be considered for compensation in land acquisition cases, unless justified otherwise.
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
