The High Court in its judgment has referred to various decisions showing that the rates specified in the notification issued by the Union of India would be admissible in evidence. There is nothing to show that the said judgments were brought on record in accordance with law. There is also nothing to show that any application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed and allowed by the High Court permitting the Respondents to bring the said judgment on records. In fact, several reported judgments have been referred to by the High Court not for the purpose of applying the ratio therein as precedent that such notifications are admissible in evidence but for the purpose of computing the amount of compensation on the basis of the rates at which the market price was fixed therein. The High Court had referred to the judgments whereby the market value of the land had been calculated on the basis of the rates specified in such notification in respect of Vasant Vihar, Defence Enclave and several other areas, without arriving at any finding that the said judgments are admissible in evidence or otherwise have relevance for determination of the market value of the land in question. The rights of the parties, it is well- settled, must be determined on the basis of the case pleaded and proved by leading proper evidence and just not on the basis of other reported judgments [See Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. v. Chief Executive Officer, M.P. and Ors., MANU/SC/0227/2004 : (2004)10SCC126 and Sanjay Gera v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. MANU/SC/0127/2005 : (2005)3SCC207 ].
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 6825-26 and 6827-6832/2003,
Decided On: 07.09.2005
Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ashok Bhan and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/0549/2005.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
No comments:
Post a Comment