Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.11, 18, 23 and 54 – Appellants-landowners’ land acquired by the State-respondent no.3 for the benefit of NTPC-respondent no.1 – Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) offered Rs.3,87,383/- per bigha to the appellants as compensation– Appellants sought reference u/s.18 of the Act – Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/per bigha – State and NTPC filed appeals before the High Court – Appellants filed cross objection u/Or. XLI,, r.22, CPC in the said appeals and sought further enhancement in the compensation – Appeals dismissed by the High Court, consequently, the cross objection filed by the appellants were also dismissed – Held: Appellants had two remedies to question the legality or/and correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court – One remedy was by way of appeal u/s.54 of the Act and the other remedy was to file cross objection u/Or. XLI, r.22, CPC in the appeal filed by the State/NTPC – Landowners took recourse to second remedy – High Court having dismissed the appeals filed by the State/NTPC, was required to examine as to whether any case was made out by the appellants – High Court, however dismissed the cross objection without assigning any reason – Or.XLI, r.22(4) provides that where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit – Merely because the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents though on merits, yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the landowners’ cross objection also – Cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as provided u/Or. XLI, ,r.22, CPC by assigning reasons – It was obligatory on the part of the High Court to have independently examined the issues raised by the appellants – Case remanded to High Court for deciding the cross objection filed by the appellants in accordance with law – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.22.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Two questions fell for consideration before the High Court: first, whether the Reference Court was right in awarding Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha by way of compensation to the landowners and second, 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. So far as first question is concerned, it was required to be decided by the High Court at the instance of the State/NTPC in their appeals whereas so far as the second question is concerned, it was required to be decided at the instance of the landowners in their cross objection. The appellants (landowners) had two remedies to question the legality or/and correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court. One remedy was by way of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the other remedy was to file cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the appeal filed by the State/NTPC. In this case, the landowners took recourse to second remedy of filing the cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code. [Paras 14-16] [998-C-F]
1.2 The High Court having dismissed the appeals filed by the State/NTPC was, therefore, required to examine as to whether any case was made out by the landowners (appellants herein) in their cross objection for enhancement of compensation. The High Court, in para 24, dismissed the cross objection without assigning any reason. Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit. Merely because the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents herein though on merits, NTPC LTD.
yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the landowners’ cross objection also. 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 1894 Act. The High Court failed to examine the aforesaid 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. [Paras 17-22] [998-G-H; 999-A-F]
1.3 The impugned order insofar as it relates to dismissal of the appellants’ (landowners) cross objection (Para 24) is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the cross objection filed by the appellants (landowners) in accordance with law with a view to find out as to whether any case on evidence is made out by the appellants (landowners) for claiming further enhancement of the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court and, if so, to what extent and, if not, why. The High Court will first verify as to whether the landowners have valued their claim made in the cross objection and, if so, whether they paid ad velorum court fees on the claim. If the landowners neither valued and nor paid the ad velorum court fees on the claim, they shall be granted reasonable time to first value their claim and pay ad velorum court fees on such claim. Once the court fees, as required under the Court fees Act, is paid by the landowners, the cross objection be decided strictly in accordance with law without disturbing the main order passed in the appeals filed by the State/NTPC which has attained finality. The High Court would accordingly decide the cross objection on its merit strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. [Paras 25, 26] [1000-B-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.