Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 745
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Shri Badru (since deceased) Through L.R. Hari Ram Etc. – Appellant(s)
Versus
NTPC Limited (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation Limited) & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos.5557-5559 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.5793-5795 of 2019)
Decided on : 16-07-2019
For the Appellant(s) :Ms. Radhika Gautam, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate, Mr. Vikas Mahajan, AAG, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Aakash Varma, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal of the appeals though on merits, by itself would not result in dismissal of the cross objection also.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 r/w Order LXI Rule 22(4) - NTPC filing appeal against order of reference court for reduction in market rate and compensation - Landowners filing cross objections under Rule 22(4) for enhancing the same - High Court dismissing the appeal and consequently cross objections also without any discussion - Not sustainable - Held, if after dismissal of appeal cross objections survive and need to be decided on merits - Matter remitted. (Para 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to compensation in a land acquisition proceeding.
NTPC filed appeal against award of the Reference court seeking reduction of market rate and compensation. Landowners filed cross objections.
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by NTPC and consequently the cross objections.
Finding of the Court:
Dismissal of the appeals though on merits, by itself would not result in dismissal of the cross objection also.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.F.A. No.221 of 2011 with Cross Objection No.39 of 2014 and R.F.A. No.246 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent-NTPC and, in consequence, rejected the Cross Objection filed by the appellants herein.
3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point.
4. The appellants herein are the claimants (landowners) whereas the respondent No.1 is the NTPC-a Government Company for whom the land in question was acquired for public purpose and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the State and the Land Acquisition Collector.
5. The land in question (hereinafter called the "the suit land") belonged to the appellants. The suit land was acquired by the State (respondent No. 3) for the benefit of NTPC (respondent No. 1) for execution of public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This led to initiation of proceedings for determination of compensation payable to the landowners (appellants herein) under Section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).
6. By award dated 12.07.2006, the LAO offered Rs.3,87,383/- per bigha to the appellants as compensation for the suit land. The appellants felt aggrieved and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation offered by the LAO.
7. The Reference Court (Civil Court) by award dated 31.03.2009 partly allowed the reference in favour of the appellants and enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,87,383/- to Rs.5,00,000/-per bigha. In other words, the Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that the appellants are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha.
8. The State and NTPC felt aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court and filed appeals before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Section 54 of the Act. The appellants instead of filing regular appeal against the award of reference Court filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") in the respondents' appeals and sought enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court to them.
9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the NTPC/State and, in consequence, also dismissed the cross objection filed by the appellants. The effect of the dismissal of the appeals and cross objection was upholding of the award passed by the Reference Court (Civil Court). The landowners felt aggrieved by the rejection of their cross objection and they have filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
10. So, the only question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' cross objection. Since the respondents herein (State and NTPC) did not file any special leave to appeal in this Court against that part of the order of the High Court, which resulted in dismissal of their appeal, it has attained finality qua the respondents.
11. In other words, we are not required to examine the question as to 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.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the cross objection, remand the case (cross objection) to the High Court for deciding the cross objection on its
