Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Photostat Copies Of Sale Deeds Not Admissible As Additional Evidence To Fill Gaps In Trial Stage: Punjab & Haryana HC

"Additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up the gaps in evidence or to make up for the lack of diligence at the trial stage," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that photostat copies of sale deeds cannot be permitted as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to bridge evidentiary gaps.

A bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja observed that such documents, even if countersigned by a Joint Sub-Registrar, do not satisfy the requirements of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized that the appellate power to admit additional evidence is not a remedy for a party's failure to exercise due diligence during the trial.

The litigation arose from the acquisition of 161.2541 acres of land in Villages Mullanpur Garibdass and Ferozepur Bangar for the development of "Medicity Phase-II." The Land Acquisition Collector initially awarded Rs. 1.36 crore per acre, which the Reference Court later enhanced to Rs. 3,86,86,925. Both the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) and the landowners filed appeals and cross-objections challenging this valuation.

The primary legal question before the Court was whether photostat copies of sale deeds could be admitted as additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The Court was also called upon to determine if the market value required further enhancement based on the potential of the land and comparable prior acquisitions in the same geographical proximity.

Rejection Of Photostat Sale Deeds Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

The Court dealt extensively with GMADA’s application to lead additional evidence, specifically Annexures A-4 to A-13, which were photostat copies of sale deeds. Justice Manuja noted that these documents were merely photostats and lacked the status of certified copies. The Court observed that without certified copies, the appellant could not claim the benefit of Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, which allows the production of certified copies of sale transactions as evidence.

Photostats Not Sufficient Compliance With Section 51A Of 1894 Act

The bench highlighted that the sale deeds in question were admittedly available to the appellant when evidence was being recorded before the Reference Court. No reasonable explanation was provided for the failure to produce these documents at the trial stage. The Court held that the lack of diligence on the part of the appellant precluded the admission of these documents at the "belated stage" of an appeal.

Additional Evidence Cannot Remedy Lack Of Diligence At Trial

The Court underscored that the provision for additional evidence is not intended to allow a party to patch up a weak case. It observed that since the appellant had failed to demonstrate due diligence, the photostat copies could not be taken on record. However, the Court allowed other documents like Minutes of Meetings and Master Plans to be admitted, as they were undisputed public records relevant to the determination of market value.

"The photostat copies of the sale deeds at Annexures A-4 to A-13 cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of additional evidence at this belated stage."

Base Market Value Determined By Comparable Proximity

Turning to the merits of the valuation, the Court relied on its earlier decision in GMADA v. Baldev Singh (2026), which concerned the acquisition of adjacent land in the same villages for road construction. The Court found that the previous acquisition in 2009, assessed at Rs. 3,38,40,000 per acre, constituted the "best evidence available" for determining the base market value for the present 2013 notification.

15% Annual Appreciation Granted For High Potential Land

The bench noted that the acquired land was situated on a 200 ft. wide master plan road in close proximity to UT Chandigarh, significantly enhancing its potential value. Given the time gap of 4 years and 3 months between the 2009 and 2013 notifications, the Court applied an annual appreciation of 15%. Relying on the precedent in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan v. Bipin Kumar, the Court calculated the enhanced base value at Rs. 5,54,13,000 per acre.

"The 'deduction for development' factor is a variable percentage and the range of percentage itself being very wide from 20% to 75%."

Application Of 25% Development Cut For Urbanized Surroundings

On the issue of development deductions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sajan v. State of Maharashtra and Kasturi v. State of Haryana. It observed that while a one-third deduction is the general rule, a lower cut is justified when the land is located near developed areas with existing infrastructure. Since the land was adjacent to developed colonies like Omaxe and Altus, the Court applied a 25% deduction instead of the standard 33.33%.

Final Re-determination Of Compensation And Statutory Benefits

After applying the 25% development cut to the appreciated value, the Court fixed the final market value at Rs. 4,15,59,750 per acre. The Court clarified that the landowners are entitled to all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, including 30% solatium and interest. It also noted that although arguments regarding the 2013 Act were raised before the Reference Court, they were not pursued in the present appeals.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeals filed by GMADA and partly allowed the cross-objections filed by the landowners. The final re-assessment significantly increased the compensation from the Reference Court's award. This judgment serves as a stern reminder that procedural diligence at the trial level is indispensable and that photostat documents cannot bypass the rigorous requirements of evidence law at the appellate stage.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2026