Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Compensation Case to High Court for Fresh Adjudication on Cross Objections

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has remanded a land acquisition compensation case to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the cross objections filed by the appellants. The bench comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi passed the judgment on 4th July 2023.

The case pertained to the acquisition of lands by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in Uttar Pradesh. The appellants had challenged the compensation granted for the acquisition of their lands, claiming higher compensation on the grounds of parity to other lands in the vicinity.

The District Judge had initially determined the market value of the lands but deducted a portion for development charges. Both the appellants and the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority had filed appeals in the High Court against this decision. However, the High Court confirmed the compensation as determined by the District Judge.

The appellants contended that their cross objections, filed in the appeal, were not considered by the High Court while passing the judgment. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which govern the remedies available to a respondent in the court of first appeal.

Justice Krishna Murari, delivering the judgment, emphasized that cross objections have the same status as a regular appeal and must be considered in full by the court. The High Court was found to have failed in its obligation to apply its mind to all the issues raised, including the cross objections. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the matter should be remanded back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in the cross objections.

The judgment highlighted the importance of the court of first appeal in recording findings supported by reasons on all the issues raised. It cited relevant precedents to emphasize the duty of the court to consider cross objections and the consequences of failing to do so.

The decision of the Supreme Court grants a renewed opportunity to the appellants to present their case and have their cross objections duly considered by the High Court. The remand for fresh adjudication aims to ensure a fair and comprehensive consideration of all the grounds raised in the appeal.

The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the case to the High Court sets a precedent for the proper consideration of cross objections in land acquisition matters, contributing to the fair and just resolution of disputes in this domain.

Date of Decision: 4th July, 2023

DHEERAJ SINGH    vs GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.   

Latest Legal News