Failure to produce original powers of attorney vitiates land-acquisition enhancement proceedings.

The State appealed four awards enhancing land-acquisition compensation, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Purulia, on 17 December 2007.

The State challenged the awards on grounds including breach of natural justice, failure to consider land classification, and the absence of testimony from the land losers themselves.

It also argued that the witness who testified lacked authority to act for them.

The respondents admitted that the original Powers of Attorney had not been produced before the Land Acquisition Judge.

The appeals were heard together by consent.

Whether the failure to produce the original Powers of Attorney was a material defect warranting the setting aside of the awards

Whether the awards could stand where the land losers’ burden to establish inadequate compensation and higher market value had not been adequately addressed, including consideration of land classification

Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, distinguish an agent’s authority to act for a principal from the agent’s competence to testify about matters within the principal’s personal knowledge.

A Power of Attorney holder may testify about acts performed by the holder, but cannot substitute for the principal on matters requiring the principal’s personal knowledge or cross-examination (Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217).

The competence of such a witness depends on the nature of the facts and the witness’s own knowledge; personal testimony may be necessary where the relevant matter is known only to the principal (Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981).

In a reference seeking enhanced land-acquisition compensation, the claimant bears the initial burden of proving that the Collector’s award is inadequate and establishing the higher market value claimed (Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 50, paras. 7–12).

The judgment also cites State of West Bengal v. Secretary, Union Club, Purulia, (1971) 7 CWN 296, in support of the burden on the party seeking enhancement.

The respondents’ admission that the original Powers of Attorney were not disclosed was treated as a serious infirmity in the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Judge.

The Court also found that the awards did not address the alleged incorrect classification of the land or reflect the necessary assessment of the factors relevant to enhancement.

Given the claimant’s burden to prove inadequacy of the Collector’s award and the higher value sought, the Court held that the awards could not stand.

It set them aside without deciding the underlying merits, leaving all questions open for fresh determination.

It requested that the proceedings be concluded preferably within six months of communication of the order.