SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.HARI RAM ETC.versusNTPC LIMITED (FORMERLY NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED) & ORS.

                        [2019] 9 S.C.R. 993                             993


               SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED)                              A
               THROUGH L.R.HARI RAM ETC.
                                 v.
        NTPC LIMITED (FORMERLY NATIONAL
    THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED) & ORS.
                                                                        B
               (Civil Appeal Nos.5557-5559 of 2019)
                           JULY 16, 2019
 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.11, 18, 23 and 54 –
                                                                        C
Appellants-landowners’ land acquired by the State-respondent no.3
for the benefit of NTPC-respondent no.1 – Land Acquisition Officer
(LAO) offered Rs.3,87,383/- per bigha to the appellants as
compensation– Appellants sought reference u/s.18 of the Act –
Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.5,00,000/-
per bigha – State and NTPC filed appeals before the High Court –        D
Appellants filed cross objection u/Or. XLI,, r.22, CPC in the said
appeals and sought further enhancement in the compensation –
Appeals dismissed by the High Court, consequently, the cross
objection filed by the appellants were also dismissed – Held:
Appellants had two remedies to question the legality or/and
                                                                        E
correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court – One remedy
was by way of appeal u/s.54 of the Act and the other remedy was to
file cross objection u/Or. XLI, r.22, CPC in the appeal filed by the
State/NTPC – Landowners took recourse to second remedy – High
Court having dismissed the appeals filed by the State/NTPC, was
required to examine as to whether any case was made out by the          F
appellants – High Court, however dismissed the cross objection
without assigning any reason – Or.XLI, r.22(4) provides that where,
in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a
memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is
dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be
                                                                        G
heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the
Court thinks fit – Merely because the High Court dismissed the
appeals filed by the respondents though on merits, yet that by itself
would not result in dismissal of the landowners’ cross objection
also – Cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits
                                                                        H
                               993
994           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 9 S.C.R.


A     notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as provided u/Or. XLI,
      ,r.22, CPC by assigning reasons – It was obligatory on the part of
      the High Court to have independently examined the issues raised
      by the appellants – Case remanded to High Court for deciding the
      cross objection filed by the appellants in accordance with law –
      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.22.
B
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 Two questions fell for consideration before the
      High Court: first, whether the Reference Court was right in
      awarding Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha by way of compensation to the
C     landowners and second, whether any case was made out for
      enhancement of the amount of compensation than what was
      awarded to them by the Reference Court by its award dated
      31.03.2009. So far as first question is concerned, it was required
      to be decided by the High Court at the instance of the State/
      NTPC in their appeals whereas so far as the second question is
D     concerned, it was required to be decided at the instance of the
      landowners in their cross objection. The appellants (landowners)
      had two remedies to question the legality or/and correctness of
      the award passed by the Reference Court. One remedy was by
      way of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
E     and the other remedy was to file cross objection under Order 41
      Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the appeal filed
      by the State/NTPC. In this case, the landowners took recourse
      to second remedy of filing the cross objection under Order 41
      Rule 22 of the Code. [Paras 14-16] [998-C-F]

F           1.2 The High Court having dismissed the appeals filed by
      the State/NTPC was, therefore, required to examine as to whether
      any case was made out by the landowners (appellants herein) in
      their cross objection for enhancement of compensation. The High
      Court, in para 24, dismissed the cross objection without assigning
      any reason. Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that where,
G     in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a
      memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is
      dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be
      heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as
      the Court thinks fit. Merely because the High Court dismissed
H     the appeals filed by the respondents herein though on merits,
 SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED) THR. L.R. HARI RAM v.                     995
                    NTPC LTD.

yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the landowners’    A
cross objection also. The cross objection had to be disposed of
on its merits notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as
provided by in Order 41 Rule 22 (4) of the Code by assigning
reasons. Even though the High Court dismissed the appeals of
the State/NTPC on merits yet it was obligatory on the part of the
                                                                       B
High Court to have independently examined the issues raised
by the landowners (respondents in appeal) before the High Court
in the cross objection with a view to find out as to whether any
case was made out on facts by the landowners for further
enhancement in the compensation and, if so, to what extent. The
question as to whether any case for enhancement of compensation        C
is made out or not was required to be decided on appreciation of
the evidence adduced by the parties on the issue of market value
of the acquired land keeping in view the parameters laid down in
Section 23 of the 1894 Act. The High Court failed to examine the
aforesaid question while dealing with the cross objection of the
                                                                       D
landowners and wrongly rejected it without assigning any reason
as is clear from the order quoted above. Rejection of cross
objection without any discussion and reason cannot be
countenanced. It is not, therefore, legally sustainable.
[Paras 17-22] [998-G-H; 999-A-F]
      1.3 The impugned order insofar as it relates to dismissal of     E
the appellants’ (landowners) cross objection (Para 24) is set aside.
The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the cross
objection filed by the appellants (landowners) in accordance with
law with a view to find out as to whether any case on evidence is
made out by the appellants (landowners) for claiming further           F
enhancement of the amount of compensation determined by the
Reference Court and, if so, to what extent and, if not, why. The
High Court will first verify as to whether the landowners have
valued their claim made in the cross objection and, if so, whether
they paid ad velorum court fees on the claim. If the landowners
neither valued and nor paid the ad velorum court fees on the           G
claim, they shall be granted reasonable time to first value their
claim and pay ad velorum court fees on such claim. Once the
court fees, as required under the Court fees Act, is paid by the
landowners, the cross objection be decided strictly in accordance
                                                                       H
996            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 9 S.C.R.


A     with law without disturbing the main order passed in the appeals
      filed by the State/NTPC which has attained finality. The High Court
      would accordingly decide the cross objection on its merit strictly
      in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the
      observations made in this order. [Paras 25, 26] [1000-B-D]
B           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.5557-
      5559 of 2019
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2017 of the High
      Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RFA No. 221 of 2011 with
      Cross Objection No. 39 of 2014 and RFA No. 246 of 2011
C           Ms.Radhika Gautam, Adv. for the Appellants.
           Vikas Mahajan, AAG, Aakash Varma, Anil Kumar, Vinod Sharma,
      Ms.Laxmi Kumari, Puneet Taneja, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D           ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
            1. Leave granted.
             2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order
      dated 20.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
      Shimla in R.F.A. No.221 of 2011 with Cross Objection No.39 of 2014
E     and R.F.A. No.246 of 2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals
      filed by the respondent-NTPC and, in consequence, rejected the Cross
      Objection filed by the appellants herein.
            3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these
      appeals, which involve a short point.
F
             4. The appellants herein are the claimants (landowners) whereas
      the respondent No.1 is the NTPC-a Government Company for whom
      the land in question was acquired for public purpose and respondent
      Nos. 2 and 3 are the State and the Land Acquisition Collector.

G           5. The land in question (hereinafter called the “the suit land”)
      belonged to the appellants. The suit land was acquired by the State
      (respondent No. 3) for the benefit of NTPC (respondent No. 1) for
      execution of public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
      Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). This led to initiation of
      proceedings for determination of compensation payable to the landowners
H
  SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED) THR. L.R. HARI RAM v.                             997
        NTPC LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

(appellants herein) under Section 11 of the Act by the Land Acquisition         A
Officer (LAO).
       6. By award dated 12.07.2006, the LAO offered Rs.3,87,383/-
per bigha to the appellants as compensation for the suit land. The
appellants felt aggrieved and sought reference under Section 18 of the
Act to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation offered by         B
the LAO.
       7. The Reference Court (Civil Court) by award dated 31.03.2009
partly allowed the reference in favour of the appellants and enhanced
the compensation from Rs.3,87,383/- to Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha. In other
words, the Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that          C
the appellants are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of
Rs.5,00,000/- per bigha.
       8. The State and NTPC felt aggrieved by the award of the
Reference Court and filed appeals before the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh under Section 54 of the Act. The appellants instead of filing           D
regular appeal against the award of reference Court filed cross objection
under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Code”) in the respondents’ appeals and sought
enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court to
them.
                                                                                E
       9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed
by the NTPC/State and, in consequence, also dismissed the cross
objection filed by the appellants. The effect of the dismissal of the appeals
and cross objection was upholding of the award passed by the Reference
Court (Civil Court). The landowners felt aggrieved by the rejection of
their cross objection and they have filed the present appeals by way of         F
special leave in this Court.
       10. So, the only question, which arises for consideration in these
appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the
appellants’ cross objection. Since the respondents herein (State and
NTPC) did not file any special leave to appeal in this Court against that       G
part of the order of the High Court, which resulted in dismissal of their
appeal, it has attained finality qua the respondents.
       11. In other words, we are not required to examine the question
as to whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the respondents’
                                                                                H
998            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 9 S.C.R.


A     appeals for two reasons: first, these appeals are filed by the landowners
      against the rejection of their cross objection and second, the respondents
      did not file any appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the High
      Court.
            12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
B            13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
      of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals and while
      setting aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to the dismissal of
      the cross objection, remand the case (cross objection) to the High Court
      for deciding the cross objection on its merits in accordance with law.
C             14. Two questions fell for consideration before the High Court:
      first, whether the Reference Court was right in awarding Rs.5,00,000/-
      per bigha by way of compensation to the landowners and second, whether
      any case was made out for enhancement of the amount of compensation
      than what was awarded to them by the Reference Court by its award
D     dated 31.03.2009.
             15. So far as first question is concerned, it was required to be
      decided by the High Court at the instance of the State/NTPC in their
      appeals whereas so far as the second question is concerned, it was
      required to be decided at the instance of the landowners in their cross
E     objection.
            16. It cannot be disputed that the appellants (landowners) had
      two remedies to question the legality or/and correctness of the award
      passed by the Reference Court. One remedy was by way of appeal
      under Section 54 of the Act and the other remedy was to file cross
F     objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code in the appeal filed by the
      State/NTPC. In this case, the landowners took recourse to second
      remedy of filing the cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code.
            17. The High Court having dismissed the appeals filed by the
      State/NTPC was, therefore, required to examine as to whether any case
      was made out by the landowners (appellants herein) in their cross
G
      objection for enhancement of compensation.
             18. We find from the impugned order that the High Court, in para
      24, dismissed the cross objection without assigning any reason. The order
      rejecting the cross objection reads as under:
H
  SHRI BADRU (SINCE DECEASED) THR. L.R. HARI RAM v.                            999
        NTPC LTD. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

        24. Cross-objection, if any, shall also stand disposed of.             A
       19. Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that where, in any
case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of
objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the
objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such
notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit.                           B
       20. In our considered opinion, merely because the High Court
dismissed the appeals filed by the respondents herein though on merits,
yet that by itself would not result in dismissal of the landowners’ cross
objection also. In our view, the cross objection had to be disposed of on
its merits notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as provided by in      C
Order 41 Rule 22 (4) of the Code by assigning reasons.
       21. In other words, even though the High Court dismissed the
appeals of the State/NTPC on merits yet it was obligatory on the part of
the High Court to have independently examined the issues raised by the
landowners (respondents in appeal) before the High Court in the cross          D
objection with a view to find out as to whether any case was made out
on facts by the landowners for further enhancement in the compensation
and, if so, to what extent. The question as to whether any case for
enhancement of compensation is made out or not was required to be
decided on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties on the
issue of market value of the acquired land keeping in view the parameters      E
laid down in Section 23 of the Act.
       22. In our view, the High Court failed to examine the aforesaid
question while dealing with the cross objection of the landowners and
wrongly rejected it without assigning any reason as is clear from the
order quoted above. Rejection of cross objection without any discussion        F
and reason cannot be countenanced. It is not, therefore, legally
sustainable.
       23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and
are accordingly allowed. The impugned order insofar as it relates to
dismissal of the appellants’ (landowners) cross objection (Para 24) is set     G
aside.
      24. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the cross
objection filed by the appellants (landowners) in accordance with law
with a view to find out as to whether any case on evidence is made out
                                                                               H
1000             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 9 S.C.R.


 A     by the appellants (landowners) for claiming further enhancement of the
       amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court and, if so,
       to what extent and, if not, why.
               25. The High Court will first verify as to whether the landowners
       have valued their claim made in the cross objection and, if so, whether
 B     they paid ad velorum court fees on the claim. If the landowners neither
       valued and nor paid the ad velorum court fees on the claim, they shall be
       granted reasonable time to first value their claim and pay ad velorum
       court fees on such claim. Once the court fees, as required under the
       Court fees Act, is paid by the landowners, the cross objection be decided
       strictly in accordance with law without disturbing the main order passed
 C     in the appeals filed by the State/NTPC which, as mentioned above, has
       attained finality.
              26. We, however make it clear that we have not applied our mind
       to the question as to whether any case was made out by the appellants
       (landowners) for any enhancement in award of compensation. The High
 D     Court would accordingly decide the cross objection on its merit strictly
       in accordance with law without being influenced by any of our
       observations made in this order.


       Divya Pandey                                               Appeals allowed.
 E




 F




 G




 H