SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI BOGRA AND OTHERS ETC. versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AURANGABAD AND ANR.

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 15-02-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
900 
SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI BOGRA AND OTHERS ETC. 
v. 
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AURANGABAD 
ANDANR. 
February 15, 1984 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND 
RANGANATH MISRA JJ.] 
Constltioa of Iudia 1950, Artie/• UI. 
Supr1me Court in appeal telling asld• jKdgl11'at of High Court-High 
Court directed to dispos1_ of cas• afresh-High Court wh1th1r entit/1d to resurrect 
th11ariilr Judlfl11'DI. 
Land AcquisitioR A.ct, 1894, Section 23-Lar11 tract· of land acquired 
valuation of such lmtd--Transactions in respect of small properti'es do not offer 
proper guide-li1H1. 
• 
A large tract of land located with in the Municipal Limits was notified 
for acquisition under a.3 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act prevailing in the 
State of Hyderabad, corresponding to section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 
1894 for a public purpose. Appeals were filed by two groups of people whose 
lands were acquired under a common notification-, and they were disposed of 
by the High Court by applying a common basis. 
Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the first eroup of claimants 
and the State preferred appeals. 
A Division Bench of the High Codrt after 
dividing the land into zones for the· purpose of fixation of compensation 
determined the compensation. Beine dissatisfied with the results, the claimants 
preferred appeals to this Court. 
In the appeals, it was urged on behalf of the claimants that the decision 
of the Civil Judge in the second groups had not becoffie final and that an en~ 
hanced compensation was granted by the Civil Judge in that matter, and sought 
to introduce additional evidence, This Court set aside the judgments of the 
High Court, sent the cases bac'; tr> the Hi&h Court and directed the Hi&h Court 
to dispose them. 
In the connected appeal (second· group), the claimant being dissatisfied 
with the compensation awarded both by the Land A"'!uisition . Collector aqd 
' I . 
KAUSHALYA DEVI V. LAND ACQN. OFFICER 
901 
the Civil Judge preferred an .appeal to the High Court, and a Division Beneh 
A 
which reassessed the evidence, held that as no acceptable material was on 
record to justify_any enhancement of compen~ation, that award of :the Land 
Acquisition Officer should be sustained, The appellant challenged this order 
of the High Court, in his appeal to this Court. 
When the appeals after remand (first group) came before the same 
Division Beneh, the High Court finding that no further evidence was forth ... ' 
coming either on behalf of the appellants or the State, held that the ear1ier 
Judgment of the High Court shotild be treafed as the substantive judgment 
declared it to be placed on tbe record as the judgment of the High 
Court 
after remand by the Supreme Court,. and thereby confirmed the ~aluation 
and cornpensatio~ awarded by the earHer Division Bench. 
Allowing the appeals by both the groups to this Court; 
HELD : 1 (i) The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing 
with the first appeals. This Court. in ex-ercise of its appellate powers vested in 
it u:Odcr Article 136 of the 
Constitution had set aside the Bench decision of 
the High Court delivered iP 1971 and that judgment for all inteDts _ and pur· 
poses had become non~existetit. The- present ·Division Bench of. the High 
Court was not entitled, by any process known to law, to resurrect that judg-
ment into life. [909B-C] 
(ii) The dfrectio·n of the appell<"te court is binding on all courts subor-
dinate thereto. 
The provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution, require all 
Courts in India to be bo·und to follow the decisions of this Court. Judicial 
discipline requires and decorum known to law warrants. that appellate direc· 
B 
c 
o' 
tions should be taken as binding and followed. [909D-E] 
E 
Broom v. Cassell & Co., [1972] 1 All. E.R 801 :.referred to. 
·In the instant case, a jqdgnient which has already been sCt aside has 
been brought on record and has been described as the judgment iri the first 
appeals. That judgment is a nullity. The Division". Bench of the High Court 
a11owed itself to be s"!'ayed awa:Yand landed up in·a sitution which was wholly 
unwarranted. Some of its observations were uncalled for and greater restraint 
was expected, It was open to the High Court .to require the parties to move 
this Court for modification of the direction. If necessary, a reference could 
have been made to the Registry of this Court, so that this Court cotild have 
even taken suo motu action. If additional evi

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