IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2046 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2011. Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Jaswant Rai and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Amended memo of parties, as per order of this Court dated 19.05.2011, has been filed. The same is taken on record. Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside CR No.2046 of 2011 impugned order dated 03.02.2011, Annexure P4 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide which application for additional evidence moved by respondents –land owners, was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned reference Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- Board that earlier Regular First Appeal was filed by the present petitioner against the award passed by learned Land Acquisition Collector, Bathinda which was decided by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2009 vide which the case was remanded with specific direction to learned reference Court to permit the present petitioner-Board to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the land owners and to lead defence evidence. It is further contended that however in violation of the order passed by this Court, learned reference Court has permitted the respondents –land owners to adduce additional evidence. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents- land owners that, in fact, application for additional evidence was moved on behalf of respondents –land owners by their counsel inadvertently under the wrong belief that the sale deeds No.2625 and 2626 dated 19.09.1989 were not already tendered in evidence. It is further contended that however those sale deeds were already tendered and proved on record even before passing of remand order dated 17.02.2009 by this Court. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 2 CR No.2046 of 2011 However, it is made clear that if sale deeds No.2625 and 2626 dated 19.09.1989 have already been proved and exhibited by respondents – land owners before passing of remand order by this Court, the same would also be considered by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda while deciding this matter afresh. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 18, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3