9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment of High Court setting aside Reference Court's decision on market value determination. 2. Consideration of exemplars and their relevance in determining compensation. 3. High Court's decision to remand the case back to Reference Court for fresh determination. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the High Court's decision to set aside the Reference Court's judgment under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and remand the case for a fresh determination of the market value of the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed the market value at Rs. 30 per square yard, whereas the claimants sought compensation at Rs. 270 per square yard. The District Judge determined the compensation at Rs. 126 per square yard. The High Court's decision to remand the case was challenged on the grounds that all relevant factors were considered by the District Judge, and no fresh evidence was sought by either party. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should have decided the matter based on the existing record, as both parties did not request to present additional evidence. 2. The High Court's decision to remand the case was based on two reasons: the exemplars considered by the Reference Court were of small plots, and the exemplars provided by the acquiring authority were not taken into account. The Supreme Court analyzed these reasons and found them factually incorrect. It was highlighted that there is no legal bar to considering exemplars of small plots, especially when other relevant evidence is lacking. The Reference Court had appropriately discounted the small plot exemplars. Additionally, the exemplars provided by the acquiring authority were mentioned in the Reference Court's judgment but were not proven on record. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court overlooked the relevant discussions in the Reference Court's judgment, leading to a mechanical decision without proper appreciation of the facts. 3. The Supreme Court, considering the long delay and the landowners' deprivation of compensation, was urged to decide the appeals on merits. However, due to the pending cross appeals of the landowners in the High Court, the Supreme Court decided to remand the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision based on evidence appreciation. The High Court's judgment setting aside the Reference Court's order was quashed, and the High Court was directed to hear and decide the appeals and cross appeals in accordance with the law promptly. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations should not influence the High Court's judgment on merits, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence in such matters.
|
