9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 and R.F.A. No.246 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the respondent¬NTPC and, in consequence, rejected the Cross Objection filed by the appellants herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short point. 4. The appellants herein are the claimants (landowners) whereas the respondent No.1 is the NTPC¬a Government Company for whom the land in question was acquired for public purpose and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the State and the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. The land in question (hereinafter called the "the suit land") belonged to the appellants. The suit land was acquired by the State (respondent No. 3) for the benefit of NTPC (respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court dismissed the appeals filed by the NTPC/State and, in consequence, also dismissed the cross objection filed by the appellants. The effect of the dismissal of the appeals and cross objection was upholding of the award passed by the Reference Court (Civil Court). The landowners felt aggrieved by the rejection of their cross objection and they have filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court. 10. So, the only question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' cross objection. Since the respondents herein (State and NTPC) did not file any special leave to appeal in this Court against that part of the order of the High Court, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir cross objection. 16. It cannot be disputed that 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 Act and the other remedy was to file cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code 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. 17. 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. 18. We find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sation 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 Act. 22. In our view, 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. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned order insofar as it relates to dismissal of the appellants' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
