'Same Document Considered For Other Claimants Cannot Be Ignored In Land Acquisition Claim': Jharkhand High Court

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing an appeal arising out of a long-pending land acquisition compensation dispute concerning land acquired for the Rajrappa Project of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL).

The appeal challenged the judgment passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, which had rejected the claim of the appellants primarily on the ground that the original claimant had failed to produce the relevant Form-K/Purcha document.

The appellants submitted that the rejection was erroneous as other claimants pertaining to the same Khata number and Plot number had already been granted compensation. It was contended that the same Purcha/document had been considered in those proceedings and had formed the basis for granting compensation to similarly situated raiyats.

Seeking to place the relevant documents on record, the appellants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for admission of additional evidence.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal had rejected the claim only because the document in question had not been produced before it. However, the Court found that the same document had been relied upon in other claim proceedings concerning the same land records. The Court observed:

“It is well-settled that if a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. is filed in course of the hearing, the said petition can be allowed if the relevancy and the ingredient of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is made out in course of the hearing. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellants/claimants only on the ground that the document (Ext.8/d) has not been produced, however, in the another set of claim application of raiyats relating to the same khata number and plot number, it has been allowed considering the Ext.8/d marked in the Claim Case No.94 and 95 of 1993”

Considering the circumstances, the High Court allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and permitted the appellants to bring the additional documents on record.

The Court thereafter set aside the Tribunal's judgment dated 29.09.2018 and restored the compensation claim to its original file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the claim after taking into account the additional documents permitted to be produced before the Court and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Case Title: Bhuneshwari Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: M.A. No. 664 of 2018

Appearance:

For the Appellants: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate

For Respondent–C.C.L.: Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate