Supreme Court Allows Additional Evidence in Land Acquisition Case: Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 10, 2022
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can an appellate court allow additional evidence in a land acquisition case to ensure fair compensation? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent judgment, focusing on whether the High Court correctly rejected an application for additional evidence. The Court considered whether the additional evidence was necessary for a just decision, particularly when the existing record lacked sufficient evidence to determine fair market value of the land. This case highlights the importance of ensuring fair compensation to landowners whose land is acquired for public purposes.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Sanjay Kumar Singh against the State of Jharkhand concerning land acquisition. The land was acquired for public purposes following a notification issued on October 1, 1980, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 92,121 for the acquired land. The landowner, feeling aggrieved by the compensation, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was rejected by the Reference Court.

Subsequently, the landowner appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand. During the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to introduce additional evidence, including sale deeds and certified copies of judgments from other land acquisition cases. The High Court dismissed this application and the appeal, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Reference Court rejected the landowner’s claim for enhanced compensation. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld this decision and also dismissed the appellant’s application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. The High Court stated that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the additional evidence was not available despite due diligence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with the circumstances under which an appellate court can allow additional evidence. The Court noted that while appellate courts generally do not travel outside the record of the lower court, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC provides an exception in certain circumstances. The key consideration is whether the appellate court requires the additional evidence to pronounce a judgment or for any other substantial cause.

Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC states:

“Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if—
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to adduce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause,
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence. The appellant contended that the additional documents, including sale deeds and judgments from other land acquisition cases, were crucial for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. The appellant emphasized that without this additional evidence, the High Court could not justly determine the fair compensation.

The respondent, the State of Jharkhand, argued that the appellant had not met the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. They contended that the appellant had not demonstrated that the evidence was not available despite due diligence and that the High Court was correct in rejecting the application.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713 – The Supreme Court referred to this case to emphasize that the admissibility of additional evidence depends on whether the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, not merely on its relevance or whether the applicant had the opportunity to produce it earlier.
• Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484 – The Supreme Court cited this case to clarify that allowing additional documents does not automatically mean they are exhibited; the applicant must prove their existence, authenticity, and contents.

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to clarify that the admissibility of additional evidence depends on whether the appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, not merely on its relevance or whether the applicant had the opportunity to produce it earlier.
• Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484*: The Supreme Court referred to this case to emphasize that allowing additional documents does not automatically mean they are exhibited; the applicant must prove their existence, authenticity, and contents.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fair compensation to the landowner. The Court emphasized that without sufficient evidence, it is impossible to determine the fair market value of the acquired land. The Court’s reasoning focused on the principle that justice should be served by allowing relevant evidence, even at the appellate stage, if it is necessary for a just decision.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have allowed the application for additional evidence because the existing record lacked sufficient evidence to determine the fair market value of the acquired land. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on whether the appellate court needs the evidence to pronounce judgment, not on the applicant’s prior diligence. The Court stated that the additional evidence was crucial for a just decision, and therefore, it should be allowed.

“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.”

“Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature.”

“Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion 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.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Appellate courts can allow additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC if it is necessary for a just decision.
• ✓ The focus should be on whether the appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment, not on the applicant’s prior diligence.
• ✓ Landowners are entitled to fair market value for their acquired land, and courts must ensure that sufficient evidence is considered to determine this value.
• ✓ The applicant must prove the existence, authenticity, and genuineness of the additional documents, including contents thereof, in accordance with law.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order rejecting the application for additional evidence and allowed the appellant to bring on record the documents mentioned in the application. The matter was remanded to the Reference Court to decide the case afresh after the additional evidence has been proved by the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that appellate courts have the power to allow additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when it is necessary for a just decision, particularly in cases where existing evidence is insufficient to determine fair compensation. This case reinforces the principle that the focus should be on the necessity of the evidence for the court’s judgment rather than on the applicant’s prior diligence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand emphasizes the importance of ensuring fair compensation to landowners in land acquisition cases. By allowing additional evidence, the Court has ensured that the Reference Court can make a just decision based on all relevant information. This case clarifies the circumstances under which appellate courts can allow additional evidence and reinforces the principle that the focus should be on the necessity of the evidence for the court’s judgment.