Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors. (2023): Supreme Court Remands Case on Land Acquisition Compensation
- Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Bela M. Trivedi
- 4 July, 2023
Introduction
These appeals stem from a land acquisition dispute where the appellants challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired under the Greater Noida Development Project. Their primary grievance was that the High Court failed to consider their cross objections regarding enhanced compensation during appellate proceedings.
Facts of the Case
On 30.04.1993, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire large tracts of land, including the appellants’ property, for the Greater Noida Project.
A declaration under Section 6 followed on 25.06.1993, and possession was taken between 13.08.1993 and 31.05.1994.
On 27.08.1994, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at rates of ₹32.52, ₹22.44, and ₹16.46 per sq. yard.
Dissatisfied, the appellants sought reference under Section 18, demanding ₹350–₹500 per sq. yard.
On 09.05.2002,
Allahabad High Court Remand Case
the District Judge fixed compensation at ₹267 per sq. yard (after deducting development charges), along with solatium and interest.
The Greater Noida Authority appealed, while the appellants filed cross objections seeking higher compensation.
On 04.01.2017, the Allahabad High Court upheld the District Judge’s order but failed to consider the appellants’ cross objections. Their review petition (05.01.2017) was also dismissed.
This led to the filing of the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Issues of the Case
Did the High Court err by failing to consider the appellants’ cross objections regarding enhanced compensation?
Should the matter be remanded to the High Court for reconsideration?
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to the High Court of Allahabad for fresh adjudication. Key findings:
The High Court erred in ignoring the cross objections filed by the appellants.
As per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections have the same legal effect as an independent appeal and must be adjudicated with due consideration.
The High Court’s judgments dated 04.01.2017 and 05.01.2017 did not reflect any discussion on cross objections.
Referring to Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 2 SCC 407, the Court reiterated that the first appellate court must apply its mind to all issues raised before it.
Supreme Court’s Directions
✅ Set aside the High Court’s judgments insofar as they ignored the cross objections.
✅ Remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.
✅ Clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of compensation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed in its judicial duty by not considering the appellants’ cross objections relating to enhancement of compensation. Under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, cross objections carry equal weight as a full-fledged appeal. The Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication, ensuring that the appellants’ claims are properly addressed.
