2019 (7) TMI 1585 - SC - Indian Laws

Determination of the compensation offered by the LAO - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the respondents appeals for two reasons first, these appeals are filed by the landowners against the rejection of their cross objection and second, the respondents did not file any appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the High Court? Whether the Reference Court was right in awarding ₹ 5,00,000/- per bigha by way of compensation to the landowners? - Whether any case was made out for enhancement of the amount of compensation than what was awarded to them by the Reference Court by its award dated 31.03.2009? - HELD THAT - Merely because the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents herein though on merits, yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the landowners cross objection also. In our view, the cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as provided by in Order 41 Rule 22 (4) of the Code by assigning reasons. Even though the High Court dismissed the appeals of the State/NTPC on merits yet it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to have independently examined the issues raised by the landowners (respondents in appeal) before the High Court in the cross objection with a view to find out as to whether any case was made out on facts by the landowners for further enhancement in the compensation and, if so, to what extent. The question as to whether any case for enhancement of compensation is made out or not was required to be decided on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties on the issue of market value of the acquired land keeping in view the parameters laid down in Section 23 of the Act. The High Court failed to examine the question while dealing with the cross objection of the landowners and wrongly rejected it without assigning any reason as is clear from the order quoted above. Rejection of cross objection without any discussion and reason cannot be countenanced. It is not, therefore, legally sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against High Court judgment dismissing appeals and cross objection related to compensation awarded to landowners in a land acquisition case.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, as landowners, challenged the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) for their land acquired for a public purpose. The Reference Court partly allowed their reference and enhanced the compensation. The State and NTPC appealed against this award, while the landowners filed a cross objection seeking further enhancement.

2. The High Court dismissed the appeals by the State and NTPC, as well as the cross objection by the landowners. The Supreme Court focused on whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the landowners' cross objection, as the appeals by the State and NTPC did not challenge this aspect and had attained finality.

3. The landowners had two remedies to challenge the Reference Court's award: appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act or cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, the landowners chose the latter option, seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to independently examine the landowners' cross objection on its merits. The Court emphasized that the cross objection should have been decided based on evidence regarding the market value of the acquired land, as per the parameters in Section 23 of the Act.

5. The High Court's dismissal of the State and NTPC's appeals did not automatically justify the rejection of the landowners' cross objection. The Court highlighted that the cross objection should have been considered separately and reasons should have been provided for its dismissal.

6. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order dismissing the cross objection, and remanded the case back to the High Court. The High Court was directed to evaluate the cross objection on its merits, ensuring that the landowners have valued their claim and paid the necessary court fees.

7. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not assessed whether the landowners were entitled to further enhancement in compensation. The High Court was instructed to decide the cross objection impartially, strictly following the law, without being influenced by any observations made in the Supreme Court's order.