In a significant legal ruling, the appellate court allowed the admission of additional evidence in a Land Acquisition Case, specifically related to determining the fair market value of the acquired land. This decision highlights the importance of procedural rules regarding the admission of evidence and its potential impact on the final judgment. Stay tuned for further insights on this case.
Facts
- The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in First Appeal No 44/2007.
- The High Court dismissed the First Appeal filed by the appellant who was the original claimant in the case.
- Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 92,121 for the acquired land.
- Appellant filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
- Appellant proposed to bring on record certain sale deeds and certified copy of judgment and award relevant to determine fair market value.
- High Court dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and IA No. 1384/2019.
- High Court, in the impugned judgment, dismissed the First Appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in Reference Case No 36/1989.
- The land was proposed to be acquired for public purpose by a notification dated 01.10.1980 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
- Appellant appealed the judgment and order passed by the High Court in First Appeal No 44/2007.
- Appellant filed the present appeal against the High Court’s judgment dismissing the First Appeal and rejecting IA No 1384/2019.
- Reference Case No 36/1989 under Section 18 of the 1894 Act at the instance of the land owner was rejected.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- The High Court failed to consider whether the additional evidence would have a direct bearing on pronouncing judgment or any other substantial cause.
- The documents sought to be produced as additional evidence could impact the determination of the fair market value of the acquired land.
- The general principle is that the appellate court should not take evidence in appeal, but exceptions exist like Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
- The appellant filed for additional evidence to present sale deeds and judgment from Reference Court that could affect fair market value determination.
- The High Court should have allowed the application for additional evidence considering the lack of material to determine fair market value.
- Only the rejected sale deed from 29.12.1987 was available as evidence for fair market value determination.
- The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend on relevancy to the issue at hand or whether the applicant had an opportunity to present it earlier.
- Appellate court may admit additional evidence if required for pronouncing judgment or for a substantial cause.
- Appellant permitted to bring on record mentioned documents as additional evidence.
- Applicant must prove the existence, authenticity, genuineness, and contents of additional documents in accordance with the law.
- Additional documents must be proven by the appellant before the Reference Court for consideration.
- The Reference Court is directed to decide the reference case No 36/1989 afresh, in accordance with law.
- The present appeal is partly allowed.
- The merits of the documents permitted to be brought on record as additional evidence will be dealt with by the Reference Court in accordance with law and on their own merits, after they are proved by the appellant.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- High Court’s order rejecting IA No 1384/2019 for adducing additional evidence is quashed and set aside
- Matter remanded to the Reference Court for bringing on record the mentioned documents
- Land Acquisition Case No 36/1989 to be restored on the file of the Reference Court
- Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the appeal is quashed and set aside
- IA No 1384/2019 for adducing additional evidence is allowed
- The present appeal is partly allowed
- No order as to costs given in the case
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2022 INSC 293)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001760-001760 / 2022
