1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6235-6236 OF 2009 (arising out of  SLP [C] NO.9191-9192 OF 2009)

SECRTARY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE  MARKET COMMITTEE, BAILHONGAL      … APPELLANT Vs. QUASAMI JANAB AJMATALLA SALAMULLA & ANR.

… RESPODNENTS

O R D E R

Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel. 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  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

2

Rs.4,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre. The  appellant  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 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  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 reference to the  findings of the reference court. There are several errors  in the two sentences deciding the appeals. Firstly, the  reference to ‘Sy.No.6’ is erroneous. The table of nine  sale statistics contained in the judgment does not refer  to Survey No. 6. Further if one gunta was sold for Rs.  1400/- as assumed by the High Court, the value 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 Rs.1,04,520/- per acre. Therefore,

3

there is absolutely no basis 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 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 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.83/2B  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, shows a  value of Rs.375,200/- per acre. But unfortunately, the  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 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 agricultural land. Therefore, the appeal requires to  be remanded to the High Court, for fresh disposal. If the

4

High Court had 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  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 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 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 bias; and  (iv) to  enable  the  appellate/revisional  court  to  pronounce upon the correctness of the decision. Be that  as it may.

5

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

___________________J. (R. V. Raveendran)

____________________J. (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi;  September 11, 2009.

6