Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Case for Review of Cross-Objections: Dheeraj Singh vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023) INSC 609 (04 July 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 04 July 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 609
Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J.
Can a High Court ignore cross-objections filed by a party in an appeal? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a land acquisition case, highlighting the importance of considering all issues raised before it. The Court held that the High Court erred in not addressing the cross-objections filed by the appellants, and remanded the case back to the High Court for fresh adjudication. This judgment emphasizes the duty of appellate courts to consider all aspects of a case, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved. The judgment was authored by Justice Krishna Murari, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi concurring.

Case Background

The case involves several appeals against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, which had dismissed the appellants’ appeals related to land acquisition compensation. The Uttar Pradesh State Government had issued a notification on 30 April 1993, under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire a large tract of land, including the appellants’ land, for the Greater Noida project. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25 June 1993, and possession was taken between 13 August 1993 and 31 May 1994.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the land on 27 August 1994, at rates of Rs. 32.52/-, Rs. 22.44/-, and Rs. 16.46/- per square yard. Dissatisfied with this valuation, the appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming compensation between Rs. 350/- and Rs. 500/- per square yard, citing parity with other acquired lands.

The District Judge, in a judgment dated 9 May 2002, determined the market value at Rs. 400/- per square yard but deducted 1/3rd for development charges, fixing the final value at Rs. 267/- per square yard, along with solatium, interest, and additional compensation. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority appealed this decision in the High Court, and the appellants filed cross-appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation.

The High Court, on 4 January 2017, confirmed the compensation determined by the District Judge. The appellants contended that the High Court did not consider their cross-objections. A review petition was filed, which was dismissed on 5 January 2017, leading to the present Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District Judge enhanced the compensation but deducted 1/3rd for development charges. Both the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and the appellants appealed this decision to the High Court. The High Court upheld the District Judge’s decision, and the appellants filed a review petition, which was dismissed. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court analyzed Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the remedies available to a respondent in a first appeal. According to Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, a respondent can file cross-objections against the decree if it is partly against them, even if they have not filed a separate appeal. The Court noted that cross-objections have the same standing as a regular appeal and must be fully considered by the court.

Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure states:

“Upon hearing, the respondent may object to the decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their cross-objections, filed in the High Court, were not considered while passing the impugned judgment.
• They contended that the High Court did not mention or discuss the issues raised in their cross-objections.
• The appellants claimed that the High Court’s judgment only analyzed the issues raised in the appeal filed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and the lower court orders, but failed to address their specific objections.
• The appellants relied on the principle that cross-objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal and must be considered in full by the court.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondent, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, had filed an appeal against the enhancement of compensation granted by the District Judge.
• The respondent contended that the High Court’s judgment was valid as it upheld the compensation determined by the District Judge.
• The respondent did not specifically address why the cross-objections were not considered by the High Court.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument was innovative in the sense that they highlighted the High Court’s failure to address their cross-objections, which is a crucial aspect of appellate procedure. By emphasizing that cross-objections have the same standing as a regular appeal, they successfully pointed out a significant procedural flaw.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court had considered the cross objections filed by the appellants herein, and if such consideration has not been taken into account, then to what extent can this Court grant relief.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:

• Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs. [(2001) 2 SC 407]: The Supreme Court held that the appellate court has a duty to apply its mind to all issues raised before it and record its findings with reasons.
• Madhukar and Ors. Vs. Sangram and Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 756]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in the Santosh Hazari judgment, stating that if the High Court fails to record findings on all issues, the matter must be remanded for fresh adjudication.
• Jitendra Prasad Nayak Vs. Anant kumar Sah and Anr. [(1998) 9 SCC 383]: The Supreme Court held that when cross-objections are not considered by the first appellate court, the case should be remanded back to the High Court for fresh adjudication.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs. [(2001) 2 SC 407]* to highlight the duty of the appellate court to record findings on all issues.
• The court relied on Madhukar and Ors. Vs. Sangram and Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 756]* to reiterate that if the High Court fails to record findings on all issues, the matter must be remanded for fresh adjudication.
• The court relied on Jitendra Prasad Nayak Vs. Anant kumar Sah and Anr. [(1998) 9 SCC 383]* to support the decision to remand the case back to the High Court, as the cross-objections were not considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse by the High Court in not considering the cross-objections filed by the appellants. The Court emphasized the importance of appellate courts addressing all issues raised before them to ensure a fair hearing. The precedent set by cases like Santosh Hazari, Madhukar, and Jitendra Prasad Nayak, which mandate that appellate courts must consider all issues and record findings, also significantly influenced the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not fulfill its duty to consider all the issues raised before it. The Court emphasized that cross-objections have the same standing as a regular appeal and must be fully considered. The Supreme Court, therefore, remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

The Court quoted from the Santosh Hazari case:

“The Appellate Court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court…The judgment of the Appellate Court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind, and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court.”

The Court also quoted from the Jitendra Prasad Nayak case:

“….Admittedly, a cross-objection was filed by the appellant-landlord against the rejection by the first appellate court of the existence of one of the two grounds of eviction…the existance of the cross objection appears to have been missed by the High Court with the result that there is no decision given on the cross objection.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Appellate courts must consider all issues raised before them, including cross-objections.
• Cross-objections have the same legal standing as regular appeals and must be fully addressed.
• Failure to consider cross-objections is a procedural error that can lead to the case being remanded for fresh adjudication.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to re-adjudicate the matter, specifically addressing the cross-objections filed by the appellants.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that appellate courts must consider all issues raised before them, including cross-objections, and that failure to do so constitutes a procedural error requiring remand for fresh adjudication. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the importance of appellate courts’ duty to consider all aspects of a case, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remanded the case back to the High Court of Allahabad for fresh adjudication. The Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the cross-objections filed by the appellants, which is a crucial procedural requirement. This judgment underscores the importance of appellate courts addressing all issues raised before them to ensure a fair and just legal process.

Category

• Land Acquisition
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Civil Procedure
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • Order 41 Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure
  • Cross-Objections
• Appellate Procedure
  • Duty of Appellate Court
  • Remand

FAQ

Q: What are cross-objections in a legal appeal?
A: Cross-objections are objections filed by a respondent in an appeal against a part of the decree that is against them, even if they have not filed a separate appeal themselves. They are treated as a regular appeal and must be fully considered by the court.

Q: What happens if an appellate court doesn’t consider cross-objections?
A: If an appellate court fails to consider cross-objections, it is considered a procedural error. The case may be remanded back to the appellate court for fresh adjudication, as happened in this case.

Q: What is the significance of this Supreme Court judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts must address all issues raised before them, including cross-objections. It ensures that all parties receive a fair hearing and that no aspect of the case is overlooked.

Q: What does it mean when a case is remanded?
A: When a case is remanded, it means that the higher court sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings or reconsideration, typically with specific instructions.