SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.HARI RAM ETC. versus NTPC LIMITED (FORMERLY NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED) & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 16-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
           SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH L.R.HARI RAM ETC.
v.
                 NTPC LIMITED (FORMERLY NATIONAL
 THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED) & ORS.
 (Civil  Appeal Nos.5557-5559 of 2019)
 JULY 16, 2019
 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.11, 18, 23 and 54 –
Appellants-landowners’ land acquired by the State-respondent no.3
for the benefit of NTPC-respondent no.1 – Land Acquisition Officer
(LAO) offered Rs.3,87,383/- per bigha to the appellants as
compensation– Appellants sought reference u/s.18 of the Act –
Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/-
per bigha – State and NTPC filed appeals before the High Court –
Appellants filed cross objection u/Or. XLI,, r.22, CPC in the said
appeals and sought further enhancement in the compensation –
Appeals dismissed by the High Court, consequently, the cross
objection filed by the appellants were also dismissed – Held:
Appellants 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 u/s.54 of the Act and the other remedy was to
file cross objection u/Or. XLI,  r.22, CPC in the appeal filed by the
State/NTPC – Landowners took recourse to second remedy – High
Court having dismissed the appeals filed by the State/NTPC, was
required to examine as to whether any case was made out by the
appellants – High Court, however dismissed the cross objection
without assigning any reason – Or.XLI,  r.22(4) provides that where,
in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a
memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is
dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be
heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the
Court thinks fit – Merely because the High Court dismissed the
appeals filed by the respondents though on merits, yet that by itself
would not result in dismissal of the landowners’ cross objection
also – Cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 993
993
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as provided u/Or. XLI,
,r.22, CPC by assigning reasons – It was obligatory on the part of
the High Court to have independently examined the issues raised
by the appellants – Case remanded to High Court for deciding the
cross objection filed by the appellants in accordance with law –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.22.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1 Two questions fell for consideration before the
High Court: first, whether the Reference Court was right in
awarding Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha by way of compensation to the
landowners and second, whether any case was made out for
enhancement of the amount of compensation than what was
awarded to them by the Reference Court by its award dated
31.03.2009.  So far as first question is concerned, it was required
to be decided by the High Court at the instance of the State/
NTPC in their appeals whereas so far as the second question is
concerned, it was required to be decided at the instance of the
landowners in their cross objection. 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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and the other remedy was to file cross objection under Order 41
Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 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. [Paras 14-16] [998-C-F]
1.2 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. The High
Court, in para 24, dismissed the cross objection without assigning
any reason.  Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that where,
in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a
memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is
dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be
heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as
the Court thinks fit. Merely because the High Court dismissed
the appeals filed by the respondents herein though on merits,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.