2020 (3) TMI 1358 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking further time to the appellant herein for producing documents in support of the valuation of the property - change of status of the said property from agricultural land to urban area / urbanised area - HELD THAT - The Arbitrator has proceeded on the basis of the documents that were filed before it. The Notification and the judgment that are sought to be relied upon by the appellant in the present appeal were admittedly not produced before the Arbitrator either along with the application or during the hearing of the application. The appellant cannot be permitted to rely on the said documents for the first time in the present appeal in order to argue that the impugned Order suffers from an error. The respondent is right in its contention that the documents now sought to be relied upon were in existence before the application was filed by the appellant and the appellant should have been cautious and diligent enough to file the said documents along with the application. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Arbitrator's order for not granting further time to produce property valuation documents.
2. Contention regarding change in property status and valuation based on Government Notifications.
3. Interpretation of circle rate's relevance in property valuation.
4. Argument on the timing of document submission and its impact on the appeal.
5. Allegations of repeated appeals to avoid complying with Arbitrator's order.
6. Legal justification of respondent's contention upheld by the Court.

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the Arbitrator's decision not to allow additional time for submitting property valuation documents. The appellant argued that the property's value was inaccurately assessed and sought to present evidence supporting a different valuation based on recent Government Notifications.

Issue 2:
The appellant highlighted a change in the property's status from agricultural to urban area, affecting its valuation under the Land Pooling Policy. Referring to a Division Bench judgment, the appellant contended that the circle rate should not be the sole determinant of property value, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive assessment beyond the circle rate.

Issue 3:
The Court considered the relevance of the circle rate in property valuation, noting that the Arbitrator based the decision on the documents presented during the proceedings. The Court upheld the Arbitrator's reasoning, emphasizing that the appellant failed to submit crucial documents supporting the revised valuation at the appropriate time.

Issue 4:
The respondent argued that the appellant's attempt to introduce new documents post-decision was unjustified, as those documents existed before the initial application but were not submitted. The Court agreed with the respondent, stating that the Arbitrator appropriately relied on the information available during the proceedings.

Issue 5:
The respondent accused the appellant of filing repetitive appeals to evade complying with the Arbitrator's order, emphasizing that the same issue could not be readdressed following a prior dismissal by the Court. The Court found merit in the respondent's argument, supporting the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 6:
After hearing both parties, the Court sided with the respondent, affirming the Arbitrator's decision based on the documents presented during the proceedings. The Court concluded that the Arbitrator's assessment was valid, and the appeal, along with the application, was dismissed. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the Arbitrator with relevant documents for proper valuation in accordance with the law.