http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1288 of 2006

PETITIONER: Rishi Pal Singh & Ors.                                           

RESPONDENT: Meerut Development Authority & Anr.                      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/02/2006

BENCH: Arun Kumar & R.V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C ) No.18358 of 2004) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1289 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP(C ) No.19956 of 2004), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14250 of 2004), CIVIL APPEAL NO.1291 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP(C ) No.19778 of 2004) and CIVIL APPEAL NO.1292 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C ) No.777 of 2005

ARUN KUMAR, J.

       Leave granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.

       These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court  whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Reference Court  passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and remanded the case  to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the market value of the  acquired land.         Briefly, the facts are that a large tract of land was acquired vide a  notification dated 14th August, 1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  Act.  The acquired land falls within the municipal limits of the city of  Meerut (U.P.).  The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) noted the  potentiality of the acquired land for purposes of building activity in his  award dated 22nd February, 1990.  He however, fixed the market value of the  acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard.  A reference under Section 18 of  the Act at the instance of the claimants was decided by the learned District  Judge, Meerut vide judgment dated 23rd November, 2002.  The claimants  were claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.270/- per square yard.  The  District Judge however, determined the rate of compensation as Rs.126/- per  square yard besides the statutory benefits.  Both the parties i.e. the claimants  as well as the respondent, Meerut Development Authority appealed against  the said judgment of the Reference Court in the High Court of Allahabad.   The appeals filed by the Meerut Development Authority were decided by the  impugned order which is similar in all the five appeals before us.  The cross  appeals of the claimants are said to be still pending in the High Court.         Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no reason for  the High Court to remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh  determination of the market value of the land specially in view of the fact  that the learned District Judge while deciding the reference under Section 18  of the Act had taken into consideration all relevant factors and after full  discussion had arrived at the figure of Rs.126/- per sq.yard.  Neither party  sought any opportunity to lead fresh or further evidence.  According to the  learned counsel, the High Court ought to have decided the case on the basis  of  material already on record and the High Court being the appellate court  was required to reappraise the evidence and decide the matter accordingly.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

More so if in pursuance of the impugned order the reference Court was to  make fresh determination, the parties would have right of appeal to the High  Court against such an order.  In order to avoid this extra burden on the  parties as well as on the court, it would have been more appropriate that the  High Court should have decided the matter itself rather than remand it to the  Reference Court.  We may note here that before this Court also neither party  expressed any desire to lead further evidence.  The case had to be decided  simply on basis of material already on record. On merits the learned counsel submits with reference to the impugned  judgment of the High Court that only two reasons have been given by the  High Court for setting aside the order of the Reference Court and remanding  the case back to it.  First reason is that exemplars relied upon by the  Reference Court are of small plots of land whereas the acquisition is of a  large tracts of land i.e. about 180 acres.  The second reason given in the  impugned judgment for remand is that exemplars filed by the acquiring  authority i.e. appellants before us, were not considered by the Reference  Court.  The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the  judgment of the Reference Court to show that both the reasons given by the  High Court in its impugned order are factually incorrect.  With respect to the  first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have been taken into  consideration by the Reference Court, in the first instance our attention was  invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there is no absolute bar  to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount is  given in this behalf.  Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots  being considered.  In an appropriate case, specially when other relevant or  material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered after  making adequate discount.  This is a case in which appropriate exemplars  are not available.  The Reference Court has made adequate discount for  taking the exemplars of smaller plots into consideration.  It appears that the  attention of the High Court was not drawn to this part of the judgment of the  Reference Court which has resulted in the High court completely  overlooking the relevant discussion in the judgment of the Reference Court.  Regarding the second point that exemplars of the appellant before us  were not taken into consideration, again, the High Court is factually wrong  and this mistake appears to have resulted from the fact that the judgment of  the Reference Court was not properly brought to the notice of the High  Court.  The Reference Court has referred to the exemplars of the acquiring  authority but has observed that since they have not been proved on record,  they cannot be looked into.  The learned counsel for the acquiring authority  was unable to say that this observation of the Reference Court was factually  incorrect nor he could show that the exemplars filed by his client had been  proved on record.  In fact we requested him to show these exemplars to us.   He completely ignored our request.  Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the  Reference Court ignoring the exemplars said to have been filed by the  acquiring authority.         From the above, it is clear that the High Court judgment was passed   in a mechanical manner without properly appreciating the judgment of the  Reference Court.  The appeal before the High Court was the first appeal and  the High Court, in our view, ought to have examined the impugned  judgment and the material on record before setting it aside.  Both the reasons  given for setting aside the judgment of the Reference Court are factually  incorrect.         The learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged before us that we  should decide the appeals on merits specially in view of the fact that long  delay has already taken place and the land owners are being deprived of the  compensation due to them on account of compulsory acquisition of their  land.  However keeping in view the fact that the cross appeals of the land  owners are still pending in the High Court and the High Court being the  Court of first appeal in such matters which ought to give its findings based  on appreciation of evidence, we are persuaded to remand the matter to the  High Court for decision on merits.  The impugned judgment of the High  court setting aside the order of the Reference Court is hereby quashed.  The  High court will hear and decide these appeals as well as the cross appeals of  the claimants afresh in accordance with the law as early as possible.  Any  observation made in this judgment need not influence the judgment of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

High Court on merits.  The appeals are disposed of in above terms.