Dheeraj Singh vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

4 July 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 4172 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Krishna Murari, Bela M. Trivedi

Citation

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 126 : 2023 INSC 594

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.41, r.22 – Cross objections filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation, not considered by High Court – Held: Cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal – However, as per O.41, r.22, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same – Court of appeal has a duty to apply its mind to all the issues raised before it and in cases where the High Court fails to do the same, the matter must be remanded to the same court for fresh adjudication – In the present case, the issues raised by the appellants in their cross objections were not considered by the High Court – While, the High Court gave a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in the appeal and both the lower court orders, the cross objections in specific found no discussion, much less even a mention – High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the appellants – Since such an obligation was not discharged, matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 6, 17, 18.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.41, r.22 – Held: In cases where the decree is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within O.41, r.22 remain with the respondent, to file their cross objections and to support the decree in whole – The third remedy in law is the right to file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party – The respondent also has the right to fully support the original decree passed by the lower court in full.

Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs. (2001) 2 SC 407; Madhukar and Ors. vs. Sangram and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 756:[2001] 3 SCR 138; Jitendra Prasad Nayak vs. Anant kumar Sah and Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 383 – relied on.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 A

View Subscription Plans →