DHEERAJ SINGH versus GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 04-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 126 : 2023 INSC 594
126
DHEERAJ SINGH
v.
GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4172 of 2023)
JULY 04, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.41, r.22 – Cross objections
filed by the appellants for enhancement of compensation, not
considered by High Court – Held: Cross objections, unlike a regular
appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal – However, as
per O.41, r.22, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular
appeal and therefore, must be considered in full by the court
adjudicating upon the same – Court of appeal has a duty to apply
its mind to all the issues raised before it and in cases where the
High Court fails to do the same, the matter must be remanded to the
same court for fresh adjudication – In the present case, the issues
raised by the appellants in their cross objections were not considered
by the High Court – While, the High Court gave a detailed analysis
of all other issues raised in the appeal and both the lower court
orders, the cross objections in specific found no discussion, much
less even a mention – High Court was under an obligation to
consider the cross objections filed by the appellants – Since such
an obligation was not discharged, matter is remanded to the High
Court for fresh adjudication – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1),
6, 17, 18.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.41, r.22 – Held: In cases
where the decree is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also
partly against the respondent, two remedies within O.41, r.22 remain
with the respondent, to file their cross objections and to support the
decree in whole – The third remedy in law is the right to file a cross
appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence
is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the
original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party
– The respondent also has the right to fully support the original
decree passed by the lower court in full.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs.
(2001) 2 SC 407; Madhukar and Ors. vs. Sangram and
Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 756:[2001] 3 SCR 138; Jitendra
Prasad Nayak vs. Anant kumar Sah and Anr. (1998) 9
SCC 383 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2001) 2 SC 407
relied on
Para 19
[2001] 3 SCR 138
relied on
Para 20
(1998) 9 SCC 383
relied on
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4172
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CA No. nil/2023.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4174, 4173, 4175, 4176 and 4177 of 2023.
S. K. Patri, Haraprasad Sahu, Ms. Velasree S., Mrs. Kiran
Mohanto, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv., Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das,
Ms. Neha Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present Appeals are directed against the impugned order
and judgment dated 05.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Allahabad
at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”), whereby, the
appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed.
FACTS
4. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present
appeals, for the sake of convenience, the Respondent State Government
of UP had issued a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17
DHEERAJ SINGH v. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30.04.1993 whereby a large tract
of land, including the land of the appellants herein was acquired for the
purpose of Greater Noida. The declaration of the said lands under Section
6 of the Act was issued on 25.06.1993, and the possession of the aforesaid
lands was taken on different dates between 13.08.1993 and 31.05.1994.
5. Subsequent to the possession of the said lands being acquired,
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by order dated 27.08.1994,
determined the market value of the plots at three different rates i.e.,
Rs.32.52/-, Rs.22.44/- and Rs. 16.46/- paisa per square yard.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellants herein sought
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/- to Rs. 500/- per square yard on
grounds of parity to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.