- (1.) We have heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shivam Yadav as well as Sri Amit Manohar Sahai appearing for the respondent New Okhla Industrial Development Authority.
(2.) These are three connected appeals filed by the claimants-appellants. First Appeal Nos. 385 of 2006 and (413) of 2010 are directed against the judgment and order dated 17-12-1993 passed by IXth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Whereas First Appeal no. 952 of 2000 is directed against the judgment and order dated 05-10-1995 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. The land under acquisition in all the three appeals is situate in village Nagla Charandas acquired by the same notification. By the impugned order the Additional District Judge has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.93.75 paise per sq. yard. The reference court placed reliance, on arriving at a conclusion, that compensation was liable to be enhanced to Rs.93.75 per sq. yard, on another judgment of the reference court dated 30-05-1992 passed in L.A.R. No. 250 of 1990 and 276 of 1996 in respect of village Bhangel Begampur.
(3.) Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents have pointed out that decision in LAR No. 250 of 1990 in respect of village Bhangel Begampur was subject matter of challenge by the claimants therein by way of various First Appeals before this Court which were connected together decided by a detailed judgment and order dated 19-05-2010 passed by a Division Bench in leading First Appeal No. 1056 of 1990 (Raghuraj Singh & others v. State of U.P. & others). From a perusal of the judgment, we find that the said Division bench has relied upon the judgment in L.A.R. No. 392 of 1993 (Ram Chandra & others vs. State of U.P. & others) relating to village Bhangel Begampur filed as additional evidence wherein the rate of Rs.58.93 paise per sq. yard awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was enhanced in reference proceedings to Rs.500 per sq. yard, but after making 1/3rd deduction towards development charges owning to the largeness of the area was scaled down to Rs.300/- per sq. yard. It would be relevant to quote following observations from the judgment in the case of Raghuraj Singh : "It seems that during the pendency of the instant appeals certain developments took place and subsequent to the same certain awards have been made by the reference court with respect to certain other acquired lands which are similar to that of the appellants herein. To bring the same in the notice of this court, the appellants have filed a supplementary paper-book along with an application for the same to be taken on record on 13.08.2003. It is important to mention here that this court can take notice of such additional evidences under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. provides that: 27.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 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 produce 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 judgement, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. [2] Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.;