STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANTIBHAI PUNJABHAI BHAMBHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications have been filed by the State of Gujarat in First Appeal No.3882 of 1999 and its allied matters. All these applications and also the First Appeals arise in respect of the same acquisition proceedings. They are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) So far as the Civil Applications are concerned, they are filed under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence. It is contended by the applicants-State that in the instant proceedings awards under Section 11(2) have been made i.e. the awards by the consent of the claimants and therefore, they were not entitled to prefer any reference case under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and on that ground alone, the reference cases could have been dismissed. These averments have been made in detail in Para-7 of the applications. It is further stated that at Exh.56, the list of Kabulatnama i.e. the consent has been submitted. Along with the said list, copies of the Kabulatnama have also been annexed, which have been given marks i.e. mark 56/1 to 56/27. It is further stated that by submitting application at Exh.57, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar had prayed for time to enable him to produce the necessary record. This application was given by him on 23/11/1998. However, on the next date, i.e. on 02/12/1998 for the reasons best known to him, the Assistant District Government Pleader passed on purshis to the Court stating that despite repeated requests, the concerned officer was not remaining present. Hence, the evidence of the Government should be treated as closed. Thereafter on 30/08/1997, the learned Assistant Judge delivered judgment and made award partly allowing the reference cases. The details of compensation awarded by the Deputy Collector has been contained in the statement annexed to the judgment. It is, therefore, the case of the State that these vital documents, though within the knowledge of the Assistant Govt. Pleader and the officer attending to the case, strangely, they were not produced them on record and got exhibited.

(3.) Mr. Uday Bhatt, learned Assistant Govt. Pleader appearing for the applicants has drawn my attention to the aforesaid documents and has submitted that no plausible explanation can be found for the haste made by the concerned Assistant Govt. Pleader to close the evidence and invite the judgment. He has submitted that the Kabulatnama i.e. the consent award go to the root of the entire matter and if they had been taken on record, the reference cases would not have survived as they could not have been entertained by the Court.