The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined that the judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. Every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from the Court.
Facts
The land of the respective appellants was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Act, 1894”) for public purpose. A notification u/s 4 of the Act, 1894 was published. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 180/- per decimal. At the instance of the original landowners’ references were made to the District Court u/s 18 of the Act, 1894. Before the Reference Court, the claimants heavily relied upon the Sale Deed registered between the years 1977 to 1979. It discarded all the aforesaid sale deeds and dismissed the respective references observing that the valuation of the acquired land has been rightly determined and upheld the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Procedural History
Feeling dissatisfied, the original claimants preferred appeals before the High Court, which observed that the Sale deed dated 12.02.1979 must be considered for determination of the market value as it is in a proximity in time to the notification dated 01.10.1980. It disposed of the appeals and modified the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court to the extent that the compensation is to be assessed and paid based on the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 and not based on the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1976. However, it had not assessed and/or determined the actual market value and/or compensation to be payable to the landowners. Feeling aggrieved, the original landowners (original claimants) preferred the present appeals.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“It is to be noted that there is no detailed discussion by the High Court by considering the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the market price as observed and held by this Court in the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat…there is no clarity on the actual market price and while passing the final order, the High Court has not stated the exact market value and/or the amount of compensation to be paid. There is no actual assessment and/or determination of market value and/or the compensation. How on such a vague order, a decree can be drawn and how such an order is executable? The judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. Every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from the Court. But the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court lacks total clarity.”
Judgment
The impugned orders passed by the High Court were set aside and the appeals were remitted to the High Court to consider and decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after considering the relevant factors while considering the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 as a sale exemplar and thereafter to decide and determine the exact market value and the compensation to be paid to the original claimants.
Case Name: Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. LRs. vs The State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand)
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1762 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 10th March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :