Can evidence be led beyond pleadings in a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act of 1894?

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23(1) — s.23(1A) — s.23(2) — Market value — Contiguous tracts — Severance damage — Solatium — Pleadings — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23(1) First — Market value — Contiguous tracts — Non-discriminatory compensation — Held: Contiguous tracts of land acquired for a unified public purpose under the same scheme must be awarded consistent, non-discriminatory compensation; a radial step-down model that ignores transaction-based local evidence is arbitrary, and the uniform market value stands restored. (¶5) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23(1) Thirdly — Severance damage — Remaining unacquired land — Held further: Severance damage compensates the diminution in value of the unacquired remaining land and is calculated on its market value, not on the acquired land; a rule of thumb based on distance from the village abadi that ignores the physical barrier is unsustainable. (¶7) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23(1A) — s.23(2) — Solatium — Auxiliary assets — Held further: Solatium and the additional amount are payable only on the market value determined under Section 23(1) First Clause, not on damages for trees, severance, tubewells or structures under the second to sixth factors. (¶8, 9) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.18 — Reference petition — Evidence beyond pleadings — Held further: A reference petition strictly defines the dispute and evidence cannot be led beyond pleadings, so tree compensation is restricted to the trees pleaded. Appeals disposed of with market value and severance charges restored. (¶6, 11)