[2026:RJ-JP:7402] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9485/2015 Vipin Kumar S/o Virendra Jaloria R/o 38-B, Tagore Path, Banipark, Jaipur ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. Public Works Department, Circle-3 Jaipur through Superintendent Engineer 2. Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department, Circle-3, Jaipur 3. Government of Rajasthan through District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B L Sharma Mr. Bhanu Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal on behalf of Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 16/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by assailing order dated 18.02.2015, passed by Senior Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the application dated 03.04.2010 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document in question is highly relevant to demonstrate that when the Land Acquisition Officer invoked the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was determined that 80% of the compensation amount payable came to Rs. 4,69,084/-. [2026:RJ-JP:7402] (2 of 3) [CW-9485/2015] 3. He further submits that, however, while passing the award, an amount of only Rs. 1,26,750/- was awarded. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the petitioner filed a reference application seeking enhancement of the award amount. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court, without properly considering the relevancy and significance of the document, rejected the application merely on the ground that the document was in existence at the time of passing of the award dated 18.08.2000 and had not been produced earlier by the petitioner. Consequently, the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was dismissed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the document constitutes internal correspondence and bears no relevance to the determination of market value in the reference proceedings. It is therefore argued that the Trial Court rightly refused to take the document on record. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. 7. This Court finds that the letter dated 06.09.1998 was written by the Land Acquisition Officer and this fact is not disputed. It further appears that the said letter was addressed to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the genuineness of the document. The question of its relevancy shall be examined by the Reference Court at the time of final adjudication. However, this Court is of the view that the document ought not to have been refused to be taken on record. [2026:RJ-JP:7402] (3 of 3) [CW-9485/2015] 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 18.02.2015, whereby the application dated 03.04.2010 was dismissed, is hereby quashed and set aside. The application dated 03.04.2010 is allowed, and the documents dated 06.09.1998 and 03.11.1999 filed along with the said application are permitted to be taken on record. However, the admissibility and proof of these documents shall be adjudicated by the Reference Court at the time of final decision. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /49