CHARANJIT KAUR (DEAD) THR. PROPOSED LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 04-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
).. 
CHARANJIT KAUR (DEAD) THR. PROPOSED LRS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 4, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARAMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
land Acquisition Ac/, 1894: 
land acquisition-Appeals before High Court-Against common 
judgment and same subject matter filed by claimants as well as Union of C 
India-Segregation and disposal of appeals filed by claimants while appeals 
filed by Union of India kept pending-Propriety-Held, the method of 
segregation of appeals filed by the claimants from the appeals filed by the 
Union of India for separate consideration as well as the manner of disposal 
adopted also do not conform lo a proper, reasonable and lawful exercise of D 
powers of the appellate court -Where several appeals are before an appellate 
forum filed in the form of counter claims both of the land owners as well as 
the acquiring authorities, for determination of the proper market value and 
assessment o/Jair compensation, the process involved in such adjudication, 
necessarily has lo be a related one, taking together, the combination of all 
relevant factors and the adjudication cannot be undertaken in a disinjzmcled E 
manner by dealing with such claims, though pertaining to the same subject-
matter, separately and distinctly-Such compartme/1/al consideration of 
competing and conflicting claims relating to one and the same matter would 
seriously jeopardize a proper and effective determination and assessme/1/ of 
the market value and/air compensation to be paid/or the property acquired-
p 
When large extent of undeveloped lands are acquired and the courts have lo 
assess the market value of the acquired property also taking into account the 
potentialities for developed uses, courts devised the method of imposing 
deductions of a reasonable percentage of the average market value to ultimately 
arrive at the actual market values to be paid -The process of such 
determination being inevitably a composite one keeping in view a combination G 
of several and varying factors, the same cannot be legitimately undertaken in 
a disinjuncted and compartmentalised manner, without sacrificing uniformity 
in approach and resultant injustice to parties-Besides, some of the observations 
made in the judgments itself would amount to virtual foreclosure of the claims 
of the land owners substantially who are seeking to oppose deduction as H 
439 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A against the plea of the authorities for deduction of 53% towards development 
cost-Appeal-Appeals by rival parties against same judgment and same subject 
matter-Segregation for disposal separately-Propriety-Practice and 
Procedure. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3068-3069 
B of 2003. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2000 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1110 and 1111 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 3073-3074, 3075, 3077, 3078, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084, 
3085, 3086, 3087, 3089, 3091, 3092, 3095, 3097, 3098, 3099, 3100, 3102, 
3103, 3104, 3105, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 3110, 3111, 3112, 3113, 3114, 
3115, 3116, 3117, 3118, 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, 3123, 3124, 3125, 3126, 
D 3127, 3128, 3129, 3130, 3131, 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3136, 3137, 3138-
3139, 3141, 3142, 3143-3148 of2003. 
R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Jain, K.T.S. Tulsi, 
A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Palli, Ms. Varuna Gagnani Bhandari for 
Subramonium Prasad, B.S. Chaliar, Jyoti Chahar for Vinay Garg, R.K. Talwar 
E for Yash Pal Dhingra, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Smita Inna, K.C. K.aushik, 
Mrs. Sushma Suir, B.V. Balaram Das (NP), R.S. Suri and Jagjit Singh Chhabra 
for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
F 
Leave granted. 
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as for 
the Uni'on of India and State of Punjab. 
The main grievance projected for the appellants is that when the appeals 
G filed by the Union of India against the very judgment respect of which these 
appeals before the High Court were also filed are pending, the appeals of the 
claimants in the High Court alone could not have been segregated and 
separately disposed of leading to grave injustice resulting in perfunctory 
determination of compensation and claims relating thereto, pertaining to the 
very subject matter in issue, in all such appeals. We have been taken through 
H the judgment of the High Court. Ms. Indra Sawhney, learned counsel appearing 
CHARANJIT KAUR v. U.0.1. 
44
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.