Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition filed challenging judgment and order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, 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.
Brief Facts:
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court refusing to enhance the amount of compensation, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the High Court being First Appeal. Before the High Court, the appellant herein filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the 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, which, according to the appellant, were relevant for the purpose of determining the fair market value.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC found that 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.
SC stated that it is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances.
SC further stated that it may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed.
SC relied upon the case of A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar where the Court stated that the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
SC opined that while considering the application for additional evidence, the High Court has not at all adverted to the aforesaid relevant consideration, i.e., whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced would have a direct bearing on pronouncing the judgment or for any other substantial cause.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “except sale deed 29.12.1987, which as such was rejected, there was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. However, at the same time, even after permitting to adduce the additional evidence, the applicant has to prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the documents including contents thereof, in accordance with law and for the aforesaid purpose, the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is partly allowed.”
Bench: M.R. Shah, J.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1760 OF 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
