Amit 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].....before. he has further stated that when he fell down on the floor due to the beating, amit, the petitioner herein, hurled a gupti and in the meanwhile their maternal uncle, mother and sister intervened and raised an alarm. he became unconscious and after few days gained consciousness when he was in safdarjung hospital. mr. vineet malik has specifically named amit, the petitioner and his involvement. he had named sandeep, pradeep and dharambir as persons, who came on a black coloured motorcycle and started beating him. this fact about motorcycle and 3 persons was not mentioned by mr. jai prakash.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an earlier statement of the complainant jai prakash was recorded on 4th june, 2006. in this statement mr. jai prakash had stated that he had not seen the actual beating and when he reached the spot he found that mr. vineet malik was in an injured condition and accordingly he was taken to the hospital. at this stage, it will not be appropriate to comment in detail about the so-called contradiction. even if the contention of the petitioner that the statement dated 4th june, 2006 is correct is accepted; then due importance has to be given to the statement of the injured, which was recorded on 22nd june, 2006.5. in these circumstances, i do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.6. it is clarified that this order will not be construed as an order expressing opinion on merits, which is binding on the learned trial court and observations made above are only for disposal of the present revision petition. it is also clarified that this court has not examined the alleged role of satpal, dharambir, sandeep and pradeep.