Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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