Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Dheeraj Singh – Appellants
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26491 of 2018)
With
Jagdish Singh – Appellant
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31320 of 2018
With
Raghubeer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1468 of 2019
With
Dharam Singh – Appellant
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31322 of 2018
With
Charanjeet Singh – Appellants
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31321 of 2018
With
Har bhajan singh – Appellants
Versus
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32192 of 2018
Decided on : 04-07-2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 22 – First appeal – In cases where decree passed by court of first instance is in favour of respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party which is successful – However, in cases where decree given by court of first instance, is partly in favour of respondent, but is also partly against respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support decree in whole – A third remedy in law also exists, which is right to file a cross appeal. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 22 – First appeal – In cases where opposing party files a first appeal against part or whole of original decree, and respondent in said first appeal, due to part or whole of decree being in their favour, abstains from filing appeal at first instance, in such cases, to ensure that respondent is also given a fair chance to be heard, he is given right to file his cross objections within appeal already so instituted by other party – In a similar circumstance, where other party in first instance has preferred appeal, apart from remedy of cross objections, respondent can also file a cross appeal within limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of original decree, independent of appeal filed by other party – Respondent also has right to fully support original decree passed by lower court in full – Cross objections have all trappings of a regular appeal and must be considered in full by court adjudicating upon the same. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 22 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Issues raised by appellants in their cross objections have not been considered by High Court – While High Court has given a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in appeal and both lower court orders, however, cross objections in specific, finds no discussion, much less even a mention – Court of first appeal has a duty to record its findings qua all issues raised before it, and in cases where High Court fails to do the same, matter must be remanded to same court again for fresh adjudication – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh adjudication on grounds raised in cross objections during appeal by appellants. (Paras 18, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Acquisition of land itself is not being challenged by way of present appeals, and limited challenge is only confined to extent of quantum of compensation granted for acquisition of lands.
Findings of Court:
High Court was under obligation to consider cross objections filed by Appellants herein. Since such obligation was not discharged while passing judgment in appeal, matter is fit for remand to High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in cross objections during appeal by appellants herein.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present Appeals are directed against the impugned order and judgment dated 05.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”), whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed.
FACTS
4. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals, for the sake of convenience, the Respondent State Government of UP had issued a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30.04.1993 whereby a large tract of land, including the land of the appellants herein was acquired for the purpose of Greater Noida. The declaration of the said lands under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25.06.1993, and the possession of the aforesaid lands was taken on different dates between 13.08.1993 and 31.05.1994.
5. Subsequent to the possession of the said lands being acquired, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by order dated 27.08.1994, determined the market value of the plots at three different rates i.e., Rs.32.52/-, Rs.22.44/- and Rs. 16.46/- paisa per square yard.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/-to Rs. 500/-per square yard on grounds of parity to other lands acquired in the vicinity. The Learned District Judge, in the aforesaid reference, vide its judgment dated 09.05.2002, determined the market value of the said lands at Rs. 400/-, but deducted 1/3rd amount for development charge, and fixed the market value at Rs. 267/-per square yard and granted Rs. 80/-as solatium per square yard with interest at the rate of 9% and 15% per annum, and an additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value with effect from the date of transfer of possession.
7. As against this, the Respondent Greater Noida filed an appeal in the High Court, to which the appellants herein filed their cross appeals seeking a further enhancement.
8. Subsequently, the High Court, vide order and judgment dated 04.01.2017, confirmed the compensation determined by the Learned District Judge. It is the contention of the appellants herein that the High Court, while passing its judgment, did not consider the cross objections filed by them.
9. The Appellants, aggrieved by the fact that their cross objection for enhancement was not properly considered, filed a review, however, the same was dismissed vide impugned order and judgment dated 05.01.2017. Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.
10. For the sake of clarity, it is necessary to mention that the acquisition of the land itself is not being challenged by way of the present appeals, and the limited challenge is only confined to the extent of the quantum of compensation granted for the acquisition of the said lands.
11. To appreciate the issue at hand and to come to a correct conclusion, we must analyze the impugned order passed by the High Court, to see whether there has been any application of mind by the High Court on the cross objections filed by the appellants herein, and if such consideration has not been taken into account, then to what extent can this Court grant relief.
ANALYSIS
12. Order 41 Rule 22, which is the governing law in the present case, elaborates on the remedies available to a respondent in the court of first appeal where an original decree has been challenged. An analysis of the said provision, in our opinion, is essential to adjudicate upon the present case.
13. In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, which is successful.
14. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the
Court of first appeal has a duty to record its findings qua all issues raised before it, and in cases where High Court fails to do the same, matter must be remanded to same court again for fresh adju....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unnecessary technical impediments should not be introduced by virtue of interpretative process, and procedural laws are primarily intended to ....
An appellate court may remand a matter for the limited purpose of adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when such evidence is essential for the proper determination of the re....
Compensation for land acquisition should be based on specific sale documents, with a reliance on fair market value; liability for payment must be clearly attributed to the local government in the con....
In land acquisition cases, the market value of the land must be determined by considering comparable sales and the potential value of the land, particularly when it contains valuable minerals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
