Appellate courts may admit relevant additional evidence necessary for effectively adjudicating the claim.

The original claimant asserted raiyati rights over 18.19 acres comprising Plot Nos. 656, 1134 and 1216 under Khata No. 83, Mouza Sewai, District Ramgarh, on the basis of a Hukumnama Parcha, rent receipts and entries in Register-II and the Bujharat Register. The land had been acquired by the Central Coalfields Limited (“CCL”), formerly the National Coal Development Corporation, under Notification S.O. No. 3894 dated 29 December 1962 issued under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (“1957 Act”).

The claimant alleged that compensation had not been paid, although the land was being utilised by CCL, and filed a reference under Section 17(2) of the 1957 Act seeking declaration of entitlement and compensation.

The Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Tribunal dismissed Reference Case No. 07 of 1998 by judgment dated 29 September 2018, principally because the claimant had not produced the relevant Form/Return “K” or document marked Ext. 8/d.

During the appeal, the claimant’s legal heirs were substituted. They filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking admission of additional documents, including the relevant Parcha and documents relating to similarly situated claimants whose claims concerning the same Khata and plots had been allowed.

CCL conceded that the land had been acquired and that certain other claimants had already received compensation pursuant to decisions in Reference Case Nos. 94 and 95 of 1993. It also acknowledged that the original claimant had been provided employment by CCL.

1. Whether the appellants should be permitted to produce additional documentary evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC at the appellate stage?

2. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the reference solely for non-production of the relevant land records/documentary evidence warranted interference and remand?

3. Whether, in light of the treatment of similarly situated claimants, CCL’s admission of acquisition, and the original claimant’s employment, the claim required reconsideration by the Tribunal?

The Court applied Section 20 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, governing the statutory appeal, and Section 17(2) of the 1957 Act, under which the original reference had been filed for determination of the claimant’s rights and compensation.

The Court also applied Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which restricts the production of additional evidence in appeal except where the evidence could not, despite due diligence, be produced earlier; where the appellate court requires it to enable pronouncement of judgment; or where another substantial cause exists.

The Court reiterated that the provision is not intended merely to cure a party’s evidentiary deficiencies, but that additional evidence may be admitted where it is necessary to do justice or where the appellate court cannot properly decide the matter on the existing record.

The Court found that the proposed additional documents were directly relevant because they concerned the same Khata and plots and had been relied upon in proceedings involving similarly situated claimants whose claims had been allowed.

The Tribunal had rejected the claim principally because Ext. 8/d had not been produced, whereas that document had been considered in the other reference cases.

The Court further relied on CCL’s admission that the land had been acquired and that compensation had already been paid to another set of claimants in respect of the same area.

CCL’s provision of employment to the original claimant was treated as further corroboration that the land had been acquired for the project.

In these circumstances, the additional evidence was not merely an attempt to fill an evidentiary gap but was necessary for a proper and consistent adjudication of the claim.

The Court therefore held that the Tribunal’s decision could not stand without reconsideration of the matter on the basis of the relevant documents.

It set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 29 September 2018 dismissing Reference Case No. 07 of 1998 and restored the claim to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, directing it to consider the additional documents.

The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29 September 2026 at 10:30 a.m., and to cooperate in securing an expeditious disposal without unnecessary adjournments.