STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus JASVIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 945 · Decided: 26-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 945 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
JASVIR SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 26, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
A 
B 
Article 226 - Writ petition - Scope of - Appeal for c 
enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired in 1981 
pending before High Court -
Writ petition filed in 2005 
seeking to quash the ac;juisition notification dated 18.8.1981, 
to issue a fresh notification and to determine compensation 
on the basis of such subsequent notification - High Court 
0 
asking the senior officers of the Government to appear in 
court and directing them -to settle the matter outside the court . 
- On subsequent date, High Court directing to recover from 
the officers the interest on compensation accrued to the 
landowners for delay in payment thereof- Held: The quantum 
E 
of compensation will have to be decided in the appeals and 
not in the writ petition - Since the writ petition and the appeals 
are pending before the High Court, it cannot be said that there 
is delay on the part of State Government or its officers in 
effecting the payment of compensation - The procedure and 
the method adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court 
F 
in asking different senior officers of the State Government to 
be present and virtually intimidating them to agree for a 
settlement by paying compensation at current market value 
instead of with reference to Notification dated 18.8.1981 is 
improper and requires to be deprecated - Order of High Court 
G 
set aside -
High Court would dispose of the appeals 
expeditiously - To avoid any impression of bias or prejudice, 
Chief Justice of High Court would assign the matter to some 
945 
H 
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (AOOL.) S.C.R. 
A other Bench - Practice and Propedure - Land Acquisition Act, 
1897- Administrative Law - Bias. 
Article 226 - Writ petition - Personal presence of senior 
officers in courts - HELD: It is a matter of concern that there 
B is a growing trend among a few Judges of the High Courts 
routinely and frequently requiring the presence of officers of 
the level of Secretaries and other senior officers of the 
government and local and other authorities for perceived non-
compliance with their suggestions or to seek insignificcint 
C clarifications - The normal procedure in writ petitions is to 
hear the parties through their counsel who are instructed in 
the matters, and decide the petitions by examining the 
pleadings/affidavitslevidenceldocumentslmaterial - Requiring 
the presence of senior officers of the government in court 
should be as a last resort, in rare and exceptional cases, 
D where such presence is absolutely necessary - In the instant 
case, the orders of the High Court requiring the senior officers 
of the Government to be present in court are improper -
Practice and procedure - Judicial propriety. 
E 
ADMINISTRA T/ON OF JUSTICE: 
Settlement of disputes - Courts insisting presence of 
senior officers of Government to appear in person and 
directing to settle the matter outside the court - Held: Where 
the State has a definite policy or has taken a specific stand 
F and that has been clearly explained by way of affidavit, the 
court should not attempt to impose a contrary view by way of 
suggestions or proposals for settlement - A court can of 
course express its views and issue directions through its 
reasoned orders, subject to /imitations in regard to 
G interference in matters of policy- But it should not and, in fact, 
it cannot attempt to impose its views by asking an unwilling 
party to settle on the terms suggested by it - Practice and 
Procedure: 
H 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASV~R SINGH & ORS. 
947 
Appeals of the landowners seeking increase in the 
amount of compensation for their lands acquired in terms 
of the Notification dated 18.8.1981 issued u/s. 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were pending before the 
High Court. In the year 2005, the landowners filed a writ 
petition before the High Court seeking directions to the 
State Government to issue a fresh Notification u/s.4 of the 
Act, after setting aside the Notification dated 18.8.1981 
and the declaration dated 14.11.1981, and to determine 
the market value of the land as on the date of final award 
after a fresh notification and not with reference to the 
Notification dated 18.8.1981. In the writ petition, the 
Division Bench of the high Court passed orders asking 
the Princi

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