Unpleaded issue and public purpose in acquisition: Supreme Court rejects abandonment theory and restores the trial court decree.

The High Court could not decide the matter on abandonment of the State's intention to contribute towards compensation because that plea was neither raised in the pleadings nor covered by any framed issue, leaving no scope for evidence on it. The acquisition also did not lose its public purpose merely because the State allegedly withdrew that intention: the notifications identified a public purpose, and the record showed a continuing governmental decision to contribute a fixed amount toward acquisition costs. On that basis, the finding that the acquisition was not for a public purpose was unsustainable, the State's appeal succeeded, and the trial court's decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could base its decision on abandonment of the State's intention to contribute towards compensation when that plea was not taken at the trial and no issue was framed on it; (ii) whether the acquisition ceased to be for a public purpose because the State allegedly abandoned its decision to meet part of the compensation from public revenues.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could base its decision on abandonment of the State's intention to contribute towards compensation when that plea was not taken at the trial and no issue was framed on it.

Analysis: The plea of abandonment was not part of the trial pleadings and no issue covered it. The parties therefore had no occasion to lead evidence on that question. A decision on such an unpleaded and untried matter was legally impermissible.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in deciding the appeal on a ground that was neither pleaded nor tried.

Issue (ii): whether the acquisition ceased to be for a public purpose because the State allegedly abandoned its decision to meet part of the compensation from public revenues.

Analysis: The notifications themselves described the acquisition as one for a public purpose. The evidence, including the Government's resolution and correspondence, showed a clear decision to contribute a fixed amount towards the cost of acquisition. Non-publication of the award and mistaken references to a company did not establish withdrawal, rescission, or abandonment of that decision.

Conclusion: The finding that the acquisition was not for a public purpose was unsustainable, and the State had not abandoned its intention to contribute towards compensation.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was set aside and the trial court's decree was restored, so the challenge to the acquisition failed and the State's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A court cannot found its decision on an unpleaded and untried issue, and a finding that a public acquisition has lost its public purpose must rest on clear evidence of abandonment of the governmental intention to contribute towards compensation.

---