DHEERAJ SINGH (APPELLANT) Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. (RESPONDENT)
CIVIL APPEAL Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26491 of 2018
(2JB, KRISHNA MURARI and BELA M. TRIVEDI JJ., delivered by KRISHNA MURARI J.)
Facts: The present Appeals are directed against the impugned order and judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed. The limited challenge is confined to the extent of the quantum of compensation granted for the acquisition of lands of appellants.
Issue: Whether there has been any application of mind by the High Court on the cross objections filed by the appellants herein?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:
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. 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. Subsequently, the High Court confirmed the compensation determined by the Learned District Judge. It is the contention of the appellants herein that the High Court did not consider the cross objections filed by them.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal holding that, “the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the Appellants herein. Since such an obligation was not discharged while passing the judgment in appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is fit for remand to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in the cross objections during appeal by the appellants herein. Accordingly, the present appeals are therefore allowed to such an extent.”
The court observed that, “while cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.”
