Vijay Chandra Vs State

after the judgment of the trial court, the lower appellate court and the high court, the parties have exchanged correspondence and apparently conflicting communications have been issued by the functionaries of the government and the appellant. however, it is not necessary to consider additional pleadings and documents because we are convicted that the high court committed an error by not entertaining the application filed by the appellant under order 41 rule 27 cpc for producing additional evidence to show that the possession of the major portion of the land covered by the scheme was taken after paying compensation to the land owners and the scheme has been implemented.[para 12] 13. we are also of the view that the courts below have gravely erred in holding that ex.d1 dated 29.4.1983 is a notification issued under section 50(4) and the final scheme was not published as per the requirement of section 50(7). a perusal of ex.d1, copy of which has been placed on the record of this appeal as annexure-p2 shows that this is the notification by which the final scheme was published in madhya pradesh gazette dated 29.4.1983. reference to section 50(4) has been made in this notification to signify that the scheme was approved by the appellant. all the courts have misinterpreted this notification as a notification issued under section 50(4). that apart, a conjoint reading of the notifications - annexures-p6 dated 4.7.1980, p7 dated 19.6.1981 and p2 dated 29.4.1983 makes it clear that the scheme was finalized after complying with the mandate of various sub- sections of section 50 of the act.[para 13].....that pursuant to the complaint lodged by his sister-in-law, ms. meenakshi sharma on 11.6.2006, a charge sheet was filed by the police on 2.3.2010, wherein family members of the petitioner have been admitted to regular bail. thereafter, an order for arresting the petitioner was issued. as a result, the petitioner was compelled to file an application for anticipatory bail before the sessions court, which was granted in his favour. it is the case of the petitioner that he has been appearing before trial court and has been granted regular bail on 5.3.2010. thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16.3.2010 and is now fixed for 20.7.2010.4. it is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner filed an application before the trial court praying inter alia that he be exempted from personal appearance on 22.5.2010 as he was busy on official duty. however, on the said date, the trial court directed that the managing director, tourism from kumaon mandal vikas nigam ltd., nainital, be summoned to explain as to why the petitioner was not permitted to attend the court when the case was listed on the aforesaid date. as a result, the exemption application of the petitioner from personal appearance was kept pending. the petitioner states that he is compelled to undertake an arduous journey of 27 hours from dharchula to reach delhi on each date. in view of the above, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present petition, seeking exemption from personal appearance before the trial court in the aforesaid proceedings upto 30.9.2010, till the duty assigned to him in respect of kailash-mansarovar yatra is over.5. notice. learned app for the state accepts notice and states that in view of the genuine difficulty expressed by the petitioner, he does not seriously oppose the relief prayed for by the petitioner.6. having regard to the averments made in the present petition, particularly, in view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner in the present petition pertaining.....