- (1.) Delay condoned. Leave granted.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, facts of Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) No(s).762-766 of 2017 are taken.
(3.) The only question agitated in these appeals is that whether the High Court, by relying upon the previous award in respect of village Julund, was right in reducing the compensation that had been awarded to the appellants by the Reference Court. No application was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for taking on record the award passed with respect to Julund. The High Court did not rely upon the earlier award, in respect of village Dhamasana itself, though it was relied upon by the Reference Court. In our opinion it was impermissible to consider the award passed in respect of village Julund. In view of the decision of this Court in the Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah and Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 9 this Court held to consider award in other case application for additional evidence has to be moved and opportunity of rebuttal has to be granted to opposite party to prove similarity / dissimilarity of the land as the case may be, it was observed:;