The division judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar of the Apex Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs The Chief Engineer and Others held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the Claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other Claimants.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250/ per acre and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 4,15,000/ per acre. The present court issued a limited notice with regard to the reduction of compensation from Rs.4,61,250/ to Rs.4,15,000/ per acre.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Reference Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/ per acre along with the reasoning for the same. It was furthermore submitted that the High Court without any reason reduced it to Rs. 4,15,000/.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that this court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in limine which was challenging the same and the judgment and order passed have also attained finality.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine, but this does not mean that the High Court's decision has been upheld. The High Court's decision would not be considered binding precedent unless it is at least briefly upheld.
It was noted that the State had filed an application before the High Court for the withdrawal of 9 appeals arising out of the acquisition under the same notification.
It was furthermore noted that it is not permissible to allow the State or its instrumentalities to take a selective stance. If the State has accepted the Reference Court's decision with regard to some claims, it is not allowed to treat the remaining claimants differently.
Based on these considerations, the Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and restored the order of the Reference Court.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Top Court allowed the present appeal.
Case Title: Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs The Chief Engineer and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2694 – 2700 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP © Nos. 2785 – 2791 of 2019)
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 387 SC
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. M/S. S-Legal Associates, AOR Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Shiva Swaroop, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Verma, Adv. Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
