SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, BAILHONGALversusQUASAMI JANAS AJMATALLA SATAMULLA AND ANR.

                   [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 399


         SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET                     A
                  COMMITTEE, BAILHONGAL
                                   v.
       QUASAMI JANAS AJMATALLA SATAMULLA AND ANR.
             (Civil Appeal No. 6235-6236 of 2009)

                        SEPTEMBER 11, 2009                          B

      [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

~         Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
                                                                    c
           Compensation - Land Acquisition· Officer determined
      compensation amount - Compensation amount enhanced by
      the reference court - High Court reduced the amount -
      Judgment of High Court did not contain any facts or reasons
•     for the decision - On appeal, held: The judgment of High      D
..t   Court was very short and sketchy and showed non-application
      of mind while deciding the appeal - Matter remitted to High
      Court for fresh disposal - Judgment/order .

          Judgment/Order: Reasoned order - Importance of -
      Discussed.                                                    E

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
      6235-6236 of 2009.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 01.12.2008 of the High
      Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 7903 of 2007 Cl    F
      w MFA No. 2701 of 2007.

         G.V. Chandrashekar, N.K. Verma and Anjana
      Chandrashekar for the Appellants.
                                                                    G
          The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

          1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.
                                 399                                H
    400     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.


A      2. The lands belonging to the respondent situated at Kittur
  Shigihalli, measuring 8 acres 7 guntas, were acquired for the
  benefit of the appellant Market Committee. In regard to the said
  acquisition initiated under preliminary notification dated
  26.03.2002, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the
8 compensation as Rs. 36,000/- per acre. The Reference Court
  increased it to Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. The High Court
  disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant by the impugned
  Judgment dated 1.12.2008 reducing the compensation from
  Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre. The appellant
C challenges the said judgment, not being satisfied by the
  marginal reduction.

       3. We find that the judgment of the High Court is very short
  and sketchy and does not contain any facts. It contains only a
  reference to a table of sale statistics relating to nine
D transactions given by the sub-Registrar and the following
  reasoning:

          "In the present case the notification is dated 26th March,
          2002. The sale of one gunta sold in Sy. No.6 for R.1400
E         the value of land at that rate would Rs.156, 000. If 33% is
          deducted towards development charges the compensation
          would be Rs.3,75,200/- per acre."
                                                                            \

         It is not possible to discern either the facts or the reasons   ._..
    for the decision. There is no refe(~mce to the findings of the
F reference court. There are several errors in the two sentences
                                                   1
    deciding the appeals. Firstly, the ~eference to 'Sy.No.6' is
    erroneous. The table of nine sale st~tistics contained in the
    judgment does not refer to Survey No. 6: Further if one gunta
    was sold for Rs. 1400/- as assumed by the Hi@h Court, the value
G per acre (40 guntas) would be only Rs. 56,000/-. If 33% is
    deducted therefrom the market value will be Rs. 37 ,520/- and
    not Rs.3,75,200/-. Even if the price of one acre is taken as Rs;
    1,56,000/- as stated by the High Court and if 33% is deducted
    towards development charges, the market value will be
H , Rs.1,04,520/- per acre. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis
        SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, 401
            BAILHONGAL v. QUASAMI JANAS AJMATALLA SATAMULLA

                                                                                    A
       for calculating the value as Rs.3, 75,200/- as arrived at by the
(+     High Court. If the High Court had some other mode of calculation
t      in mind, that is not indicated in the judgment. This shows non-
       application of mind while deciding the appeal.

                    4. It is however possible that the High Court was referring     8
               to serial no.6 in the Table of sale statistics extracted in the
               judgment which relates to sale of one gunta of land in Sy. No.83/
   ......
               28 of Kittur village for Rs.14000/- under a deed registered on
               24.11.2001, which works out to Rs. 560,000/- per acre and if
          ~ 33% id deducted therefrom towards development charges,                  c
               shows a value of Rs.375,200/- per acre. But unfortunately, the
r'             judgment    does not say so. Further there is no explanation why
               other sale transactions in the table, particularly Serial No. 5
               should be ignored. There is also no finding that the land at
          ,. Serial No. 6 of the table is comparable to the acquired land           o
         ....4 and have similar development potential. There is also no
               reasoning as to why the deduction towards development
               charges (deductions for roads/drains/amenities etc. and the
               cost of development) was restricted to 33% instead of the
               standard deduction in the range of 50% to 67% applicable to          E
               agricultural land. Therefore, the appeal requires to be remanded
               to the High Court, for fresh disposal. If the High Court had
            1. considered the matter in a little more detail and with little more
            +-care, this remand could have been avoided.

            5. We are conscious of the high pendency and work load F
      on the High Courts. Some learned Judges, in their effort to
      speed up disposals and reduce pendency, tend to write cryptic
      and short orders. While expedition and brevity is to be
      encouraged and appreciated, the importance of reasons in
      support of the decision cannot be ignored. If judgments in first ,G
      appeals are written without reference to facts (where decision
    ~ is on facts) or without assigning any justifiable reason/s for the
      decision, they will be open to legitimate criticism. The litigants
      will be puzzled by the lack of reasoning and will lose faith in
      the institution. Further any appellate court will not be able to H
   402    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.


A fathom whether the judgment is correct or not. Courts, whose
  judgments are subject to appeal have to remember that the          +\
  function of a reasoned judgment are: (i) to inform the litigant           ~
  the reasons for the decision; (ii) to demonstrate fairness and
  correctness of the decision; (iii) to exclude arbitrariness and
B bias; and (iv) to enable the appellate/revisional court to
  pronounce upon the correctness of the decision. Be that as it
  may.

       6. We, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the judgment   ,.__
  of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for
C fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. We
  request the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

   D.G.                                          Appeal allowed.