1984 (2) TMI 349 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of compensation for acquired land.
2. Legality of the High Court's judgment post-remand by the Supreme Court.
3. Admissibility and impact of additional evidence.

Summary:

1. Determination of Compensation for Acquired Land:
The appeals challenge the compensation awarded for land acquired u/s 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of Hyderabad (corresponding to s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) for a Medical College and hospital. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded 4 paise per square yard for Navkhanda lands and 3 paise per square yard for Ahmadibag lands. The Civil Judge increased these to 15 paise and 12 paise per square yard, respectively. The Bombay High Court further divided the lands into zones and fixed varying compensation rates. Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court, upon final review, fixed the compensation at Rs. 1.50 per square yard or Rs. 7260 per acre, with statutory solatium of 15% and interest at 6% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of dispossession till payment.

2. Legality of the High Court's Judgment Post-Remand:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reinstating its earlier judgment, which had been set aside by the Supreme Court. The High Court was expected to dispose of the appeals afresh based on the existing record or any additional evidence, but it failed to do so. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires lower courts to follow the directions of higher courts, citing the hierarchical nature of the judicial system.

3. Admissibility and Impact of Additional Evidence:
The Supreme Court noted that neither party presented additional evidence upon remand. The High Court's failure to consider the possibility of additional evidence and its reliance on the previously set-aside judgment was criticized. The Supreme Court decided to resolve the matter itself to avoid further delays, given the protracted nature of the litigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and determining the compensation at Rs. 1.50 per square yard with additional statutory benefits. The Court also highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to appellate directions. Costs were awarded to appellant Syed Yusufuddin Syed Ziauddin, but not to the Kausalya Devi group due to their conduct in previous proceedings.