THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE BANGALORE versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 22-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
309
THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE
BANGALORE
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1345-1346 of 2022)
MARCH 22, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Lapse of Proceedings – Award not passed due to interim order – If
there is delay in the passing of the award owing to interim orders
granted by the High Court or even by the civil courts, where suits
may have been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners
cannot take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award
was made and consequently there was no payment or deposit of the
compensation and that possession of the acquired land continued
with them – The land owners having availed the benefit of interim
orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them
against the acquisition cannot take benefit under s.24(2) of the
Act, 2013.
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.14 r. 2 – Adjudication
upon all issues along with Preliminary Issue – The courts should
adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues
and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues – The
purpose is to avoid the increase of burden on the appellate court
and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to
be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no
findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no
option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision – Therefore, to
avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the
issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all
the issues involved.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 309
309
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to High
Court, the Court
HELD: 1. Despite the fact that a number of issues/grounds
were raised before the High Court on the legality and validity of
the acquisition proceedings, the Single Judge decided only one
issue, namely, whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed
by virtue of the 2013 Act. Whereas a number of issues/grounds
were raised and as such the original reliefs sought (acquisition
proceedings under Act 1894) were the main reliefs which were
required to be dealt with and considered, unfortunately, the Single
Judge did not give findings on the other issues/grounds and on
the reliefs sought and disposed of the writ petitions considering
only one relief/ground, namely, whether the acquisition
proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. When a number
of submissions were made on the other issues/grounds, the High
Court ought to have considered the other issues and ought to
have given the findings on other issues also. Because of not
deciding the other issues and deciding the matter only on one
issue and thereafter when the decision on such one issue, is held
to be bad in law the Court has no other alternative but to remand
the matters to the Single Judge for deciding the Writ Petitions
afresh on all other issues. [Para 8.2][322-E-H; 323-A-B]
Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors, (2020) 6
SCC 557 : [2019] 15 SCR 795 – relied on.
2. There has been a trend of land owners filing fresh cases
seeking lapse of acquisition on the basis of Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013, although such land owners may have earlier
unsuccessfully filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition
notifications. Such land owners may have had the benefit of interim
orders of stay of further proceedings in the acquisition process
or dispossession resulting in a delay in the making of the award
and payment/deposit of the compensation and consequently in
taking over possession of the acquired land. There being a delay
in the passing of the award owing to interim orders granted by
the High Court or even by the civil courts, where suits may have
been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners cannot now
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award has
been made and consequently there has been no payment or
deposit of the compensation and that possession of the acquired
land continues with them. The land owners having had the benefit
of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated
by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court or the civil courts which
may have granted interim orders in favou

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