Gian Chand Udar v. Jawahar Singh and Ors.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the Land Acquisition Cases (LAC) court dated 20.3.2014 by which two applications filed by the respondent no.1/IP no.1 have been allowed. The first application which has been allowed is recalling of the petitioner/IP no.6 Sh. Gian Chand Udar for cross-examination, and who has been recalled for cross-examination so as to put up certain official documents. Second application which has been allowed is an application to take on record certified copies of certain judicial proceedings. The main 2014:DHC:5433 proceedings in the LAC court are proceedings under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for division of compensation.

2. So far as the second application to take on record certified copies of judicial proceedings is concerned, I do not find that the trial court has committed any error because Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 659 has held that even at the stage of final arguments, unimpeachable documents being certified copies can always be taken on record. Therefore, the LAC court has committed no illegality in allowing the application for taking on record certified copies of the judicial record filed by the respondent no.1/IP no.1.

3. So far as the second application is concerned for recalling petitioner/IP no.6 for cross-examination is concerned, no doubt after crossexamination of a person is complete, ordinarily such a person should not be recalled for cross-examination and as so held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai Vs. Gupta Building Material Store 2013 (1) Rajdhani Law Reporter 373, however, this judgment of the Supreme Court also states that the issue of recall has to be looked into as per the facts of each case and there is no general bar that a person cannot be recalled for cross-examination. In the present case, I note that the purpose of recalling IP no.6/Sh. Gian Chand Udar/petitioner is so that certain complaints which have been made to the police can be put for his cross-examination. Therefore, I do not find any serious or very grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner/IP no.6 if he comes into the witness box and answers questions with respect to complaints which were made by the respondent no.1/IP no.1 to the police.

4. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are meant to be invoked and exercised only if there is grave injustice or grave infraction of law. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked where certain discretionary jurisdiction is exercised by the trial court during the course of trial. Also, Article 227 cannot be invoked in facts such as the present case because I fail to understand what will be the prejudice to the petitioner if he comes to the witness box and answers questions pertaining to official record. Also, it is not as if petitioner/IP no.6 is living outside Delhi and he would have difficulty to come to the court.

5. Dismissed.

OCTOBER 17, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne