In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has issued a verdict in the compensation dispute case involving NTPC and the landowners. The Court has remanded the case to the High Court for further consideration of the cross-objection filed by the landowners regarding the compensation amount. This ruling ensures a fair chance for the landowners to present their case for enhanced compensation. #LandownersRights #LegalBattle #SupremeCourt
Facts
- The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by NTPC and rejected the Cross Objection filed by the landowners.
- The land in question was acquired by the State for the benefit of NTPC for a public purpose.
- The LAO offered Rs.3,87,383 per bigha as compensation to the landowners.
- The landowners filed cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation.
- The High Court’s order resulted in upholding the award of the Reference Court.
- The landowners filed the present appeals in the Supreme Court against the rejection of their cross objection.
- The appeals are against the final judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
- The Reference Court partly allowed the reference in favor of the appellants.
- The compensation was enhanced from Rs.3,87,383/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha.
- The appellants were found entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement: High Court’s Order Upheld in Case of [Respondent] v. [Petitioner]
Issue
- Two questions were before the High Court: (1) correctness of awarding Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha compensation to landowners, and (2) whether there was a case for enhancing compensation beyond the Reference Court’s award.
- The first question was to be decided based on appeals by the State/NTPC, while the second question was to be determined based on cross objections by the landowners.
Also Read: Enhancement of Compensation Awarded in Motor Vehicle Accident Case: Supreme Court’s Judgment
Analysis
- The landowners had two remedies to question the award passed by the Reference Court: appeal under Section 54 of the Act and filing a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code.
- The High Court’s dismissal of the appeals by the State/NTPC does not automatically result in the dismissal of the landowners’ cross objection.
- Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code allows for the cross objection to be heard and determined even if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default.
- The High Court’s dismissal of the cross objection without providing reasons was not justified.
- Cross-objection, if any, is rejected
- Cross-objection, if any, is disposed of
- The cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits despite the dismissal of the appeals by the High Court.
- The High Court was obligated to independently examine the issues raised by the landowners in the cross objection.
- The High Court was required to determine if any case for enhancement of compensation was established by the landowners based on facts.
- The High Court failed to analyze the question of enhancement of compensation while dealing with the cross objection.
- Rejecting the cross objection without any discussion or reason is legally unsustainable.
Also Read: Case on Constitutional Validity of Section 35AC with High Court Dismissal
Decision
- The impugned order relating to the dismissal of the cross objection filed by the landowners is set aside.
- The case is remanded to the High Court to decide the cross objection filed by the landowners regarding further enhancement of compensation determined by the Reference Court.
- The High Court is instructed to verify if the landowners have valued their claim and paid the required court fees. If not, they are to be given time to do so.
- The High Court is directed to decide the cross objection strictly in accordance with the law without affecting the main order on the appeals filed by the State/NTPC, which is final.
- The decision on whether the landowners are entitled to any enhancement in the compensation award is left to the High Court.
- The High Court is to decide the cross objection on its merit without being influenced by any observations in this order.
- The appeals are allowed and succeed based on the above instructions.
Case Title: BADRU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. HARI RAM Vs. NTPC LIMITED (FORMERLY NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005557-005559 / 2019
