OF 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31322/ 2018 DHARAM SINGH… APPELLANT(S) VERSUS GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals, for the sake of convenience, the Respondent State Government of UP had issued a notification under Section 4(1)
read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 30.04.1993 whereby a large tract of land, including the land of the appellants herein was acquired for the purpose of Greater Noida.
Subsequent to the possession of the said lands being acquired, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by order dated 27.08.1994, determined 3 the market value of the plots at three different rates i.e., Rs.32.52/-, Rs.22.44/- and Rs.
The Appellants, aggrieved by the fact that their cross objection for enhancement was not properly considered, filed a review, however, the same was dismissed vide impugned order and judgment dated 05.01.2017. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with the respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support the decree in whole.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dismissal-of-special-leave-petition-and-remand-order/
In a similar circumstance, where the other party in the first instance has preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent can also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party.
At this stage, it must be noted that while cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.
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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/case-summary-time-bar-limitation-in-customs-duty-determination/
, this Court, in an identical circumstance wherein the cross objections filed by the appellant therein was not considered by the court of first appeal, held that remanded the case back to the High Court and observed as under: “….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. Since such an obligation was not discharged while passing the judgment in appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is fit for remand to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in the cross objections during appeal by the appellants herein. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI; 04 JULY, 2023 10
Case Title: DHEERAJ SINGH Vs. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2023 INSC 594)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004172-004172 / 2023
