CHARANJIT KAUR (DEAD) THR. PROPOSED LRS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

I
)..




                CHARANJIT KAUR (DEAD) THR. PROPOSED LRS.                           A
                                   v.
                        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 4, 2003

           [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARAMADHIKARI, JJ.]                          B


            land Acquisition Ac/, 1894:

             land acquisition-Appeals before High Court-Against common
      judgment and same subject matter filed by claimants as well as Union of C
      India-Segregation and disposal of appeals filed by claimants while appeals
      filed by Union of India kept pending-Propriety-Held, the method of
      segregation of appeals filed by the claimants from the appeals filed by the
       Union of India for separate consideration as well as the manner of disposal
      adopted also do not conform lo a proper, reasonable and lawful exercise of D
      powers of the appellate court -Where several appeals are before an appellate
      forum filed in the form of counter claims both of the land owners as well as
       the acquiring authorities, for determination of the proper market value and
       assessment o/Jair compensation, the process involved in such adjudication,
       necessarily has lo be a related one, taking together, the combination of all
       relevant factors and the adjudication cannot be undertaken in a disinjzmcled E
       manner by dealing with such claims, though pertaining to the same subject-
       matter, separately and distinctly-Such compartme/1/al consideration of
       competing and conflicting claims relating to one and the same matter would
       seriously jeopardize a proper and effective determination and assessme/1/ of
       the market value and/air compensation to be paid/or the property acquired- p
       When large extent of undeveloped lands are acquired and the courts have lo
      assess the market value of the acquired property also taking into account the
      potentialities for developed uses, courts devised the method of imposing
      deductions ofa reasonable percentage of the average market value to ultimately
      arrive at the actual market values to be paid -The process of such
       determination being inevitably a composite one keeping in view a combination G
       of several and varying factors, the same cannot be legitimately undertaken in
       a disinjuncted and compartmentalised manner, without sacrificing uniformity
       in approach and resultant injustice to parties-Besides, some ofthe observations
       made in the judgments itself would amount to virtual foreclosure of the claims
       of the land owners substantially who are seeking to oppose deduction as H
                                          439
    440                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003) 3 S.C.R.

A against the plea of the authorities for deduction of 53% towards development
    cost-Appeal-Appeals by rival parties against same judgment and same subject
    matter-Segregation for disposal separately-Propriety-Practice and
    Procedure.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3068-3069
B of 2003.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2000 of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1110 and 1111 of 1999.

                                       WITH
c
       C.A. Nos. 3073-3074, 3075, 3077, 3078, 3079, 3081, 3082, 3083, 3084,
  3085, 3086, 3087, 3089, 3091, 3092, 3095, 3097, 3098, 3099, 3100, 3102,
  3103, 3104, 3105, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 3110, 3111, 3112, 3113, 3114,
  3115, 3116, 3117, 3118, 3119, 3120, 3121, 3122, 3123, 3124, 3125, 3126,
D 3127, 3128, 3129, 3130, 3131, 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135, 3136, 3137, 3138-
  3139, 3141, 3142, 3143-3148 of2003.

          R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, R.K. Jain, K.T.S. Tulsi,
    A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Palli, Ms. Varuna Gagnani Bhandari for
    Subramonium Prasad, B.S. Chaliar, Jyoti Chahar for Vinay Garg, R.K. Talwar
E   for Yash Pal Dhingra, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Smita Inna, K.C. K.aushik,
    Mrs. Sushma Suir, B.V. Balaram Das (NP), R.S. Suri and Jagjit Singh Chhabra
    for the appearing parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered:

F         Leave granted.

         Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as for
    the Uni'on of India and State of Punjab.

          The main grievance projected for the appellants is that when the appeals
G filed by the Union of India against the very judgment respect of which these
  appeals before the High Court were also filed are pending, the appeals of the
  claimants in the High Court alone could not have been segregated and
  separately disposed of leading to grave injustice resulting in perfunctory
  determination of compensation and claims relating thereto, pertaining to the
  very subject matter in issue, in all such appeals. We have been taken through
H the judgment of the High Court. Ms. Indra Sawhney, learned counsel appearing
                        CHARANJIT KAUR v. U.0.1.                          441
for the Union of India contends that the final hearing and disposal of these A
matters may be kept in abeyance by granting leave and the orders on the
appeals filed by the respondents herein in the High court may be awaited so
that the appeals against such decision can be considered together by this
Court. In other respect it is contended that the compensation aw~rded and
affirmed by the High Court is reasonable and that the claim for further
enhancement has rightly not met with the acceptance of the Division Bench B
of the High Court. It is also contended that what is now the subject matter
of the appeals filed by the Union of India and pending before the High Court
is only as to the percentage of deduction to be made for purposes of
development i.e. whether it is to be fixed at 20% on the average price or
more or at 53% as claimed by the Union of India, and consequently there is C
no justification for interference with the judginent of the High Court under
challenge, at this stage.

       We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on the either side. Even at the outset we may point out that the
method of segregation of the appeals filed by the claimants from the appeals      D
filed by the Union of India for separate consideration as well as the manner
of disposal adopted also do not conform to a proper, reasonable and lawful
exercise of powers of the appellate court. Where several appeals are before
an appellate forum filed in the form of counter claims both of the land
owners as well as the acquiring authorities for determination of the proper       E
marked value and assessment of fair compensation, the process involved in
such adjudication, necessarily has to be a related one, taking together, the
combination of all relevant factors and the adjudication cannot be undertaken
in a disinjuncted manner by dealing with such claims, though pertaining to
the same subject matter, separately and distinctly. Such compartmental
consideration of the competing and conflicting claims relating to one and the     F
same matter would seriously jeopardize a proper and effective determination
and assessment of the market value and fair compensation to be paid for the
property acquired. Courts have often reiterated that market value of the
property acquired has got to be determined keeping into consideration the
location, importance, prospects and purposes to which the said land may be        G
used and potentialities in foreseeable future. When large extent of undeveloped
lands are acquired and the courts had to assess the market value of the
acquired property also taking into account the potentialities for developed
uses, courts devised the method of imposing deductions of a reasonable
percentage of the average market value to ultimately arrive at the actual
market value to be paid. The process of such determination being inevitably       H
    442                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A a composite one, keeping in view a combination of several and varying
    factors, the same cannot be legitimately undertaken in a disinjucted and
    decompartmentlised manner, without sacrificing uniformity in approach and
    resultant injustice to parties.

          Apart from the irregularity involved in separating the two categories of
B   appeals relating to the land owners and the acquiring authorities to be dealt
    with separately, some of the observations made in the judgments itself would
    amount to virtual foreclosure of the claims of the land owners, substantially
    who are seeking to oppose any deduction as against the plea of the authorities
    for deduction of 53% towards development cost. The observations in the
C   judgments under challenge that 20% cut, though has been imposed, keeping
    in mind the lack of potentiality of the land etc., in the opinion of the High
    Court, the cut appears to be rather on the lower side, could hardly be considered
    to be either judicious or judicial way of dealing with competing claims of
    parties objectively, since those claims are indisputably the subject matter of
    appeals filed by the Union of India, which are stated to be still pending and
D   remain to be finally adjudicated, after hearing the parties in those appeals.

           For all the reasons stated above the judgments of the High Court under
    challenge in all these appeals are set aside. The appeals before the High
    Court are directed to be restored to their original files to be dealt with, along
    with the other appeals said to have been filed by the acquiring authorities and
E   stated to be still pending in the High Court. The consideration and
    determination of all the contentions of the parties to the proceedings on either
    side shall be afresh, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the
    earlier judgments hereby set aside. The counsel on either side are pennitted
    to move the High Court for expeditious disposal of the appeals. These appeals
p   stand allowed and finally disposed of accordingly.

    No costs.

    R.P.                                                          Appeals allowed.