The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nadpi Chinna Mallaiah & Ors.
EmailAppeal: (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19823/1998)
Petitioner: The Land Acquisition Officer
Respondent: Nadpi Chinna Mallaiah & Ors.
Apeal: (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19823/1998)
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 08, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Compensation – First Appeal – Compensation enhanced, without reasons – No reference to evidence and submission. Held, that enhancement is improper. High Court should have discussed the evidence. Orders set aside and matter remitted back.
(Paras 3,4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the District Court, dated 18.11.91, enhancing the compensation from Rs, 18,500/- per acre to Rs. 16/- per sq. yard, does not contain any reason. The High Court has merely said that it had perused the record,considered the evidence and felt that the enhancement is reasonable.
3. In our view, it is not sufficient for the High Court in a First Appeal, to say so without referring to the submissions and the evidence – oral and documentary, which are on record. We are of the view that the High Court ought to have discussed the evidence and given sufficient reasons.
4. After hearing Counsel on both sides, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 16.7.98, and remit the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The High Court will consider the oral and documentary evidence and give adequate reasons and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
5. It is made clear that we should not be understood to have said anything on the merits of this case.
6. The appeal is allowed in terms of the directions mentioned above.
1. Leave granted.
2. The judgment of the High Court confirming the judgment of the District Court, dated 18.11.91, enhancing the compensation from Rs, 18,500/- per acre to Rs. 16/- per sq. yard, does not contain any reason. The High Court has merely said that it had perused the record,considered the evidence and felt that the enhancement is reasonable.
3. In our view, it is not sufficient for the High Court in a First Appeal, to say so without referring to the submissions and the evidence – oral and documentary, which are on record. We are of the view that the High Court ought to have discussed the evidence and given sufficient reasons.
4. After hearing Counsel on both sides, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 16.7.98, and remit the matter back to the Division Bench of the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. The High Court will consider the oral and documentary evidence and give adequate reasons and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
5. It is made clear that we should not be understood to have said anything on the merits of this case.
6. The appeal is allowed in terms of the directions mentioned above.
