REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL Nos.5557­5559 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.5793­5795 of 2019)

Shri Badru (since deceased) Through L.R. Hari Ram Etc. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

NTPC Limited (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation Limited) & Ors.                ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final

judgment and  order  dated  20.04.2017  passed  by

1

the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in

R.F.A. No.221 of 2011 with Cross Objection No.39 of

2014 and R.F.A. No.246 of 2011 whereby the High

Court dismissed the appeals filed by the

respondent­NTPC and, in consequence, rejected the

Cross Objection filed by the appellants herein.  

3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of these appeals, which involve a short

point.

4. The appellants herein are the claimants

(landowners)  whereas the respondent  No.1 is the

NTPC­a Government Company for whom the land in

question was acquired for public purpose and

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the State and the Land

Acquisition Collector.

5. The land in question (hereinafter called the

“the suit land”) belonged to the appellants. The suit

land was acquired by the State (respondent No. 3)

2

for the benefit of NTPC (respondent No. 1) for

execution of public purpose under the provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred

to as "the Act"). This led to initiation of proceedings

for  determination  of compensation  payable to the

landowners (appellants herein) under Section 11 of

the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

6. By award dated 12.07.2006, the LAO offered

Rs.3,87,383/­ per bigha to the appellants as

compensation for the suit land. The appellants felt

aggrieved and sought reference under Section 18 of

the Act to the Civil Court for determination of the

compensation offered by the LAO.  

7. The Reference Court (Civil Court) by award

dated 31.03.2009 partly allowed the reference in

favour of the appellants and enhanced the

compensation from Rs.3,87,383/­ to Rs.5,00,000/­

per bigha. In other words, the Reference Court, after

3

appreciating the evidence, held that the appellants

are  entitled to claim compensation  at the rate  of

Rs.5,00,000/­ per bigha.  

8. The State and NTPC felt aggrieved by the

award of the Reference Court and filed appeals

before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under

Section 54 of the Act. The appellants instead of

filing regular appeal against the award of reference

Court filed cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22

of the  Code of  Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Code”) in the respondents’

appeals and sought enhancement in the

compensation awarded  by the  Reference  Court to

them.  

9. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed

the appeals filed by the NTPC/State and, in

consequence, also dismissed the cross objection

filed by the appellants. The effect of the dismissal of

4

the appeals and cross objection was upholding of

the award passed by the Reference Court (Civil

Court). The landowners felt aggrieved by the

rejection of their cross objection and they have filed

the present appeals by way of special leave in this

Court.

10.   So, the only question, which arises for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the High

Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’

cross objection.  Since the respondents herein (State

and NTPC) did not file any special leave to appeal in

this Court against that part of the order of the High

Court, which resulted in dismissal of their appeal, it

has attained finality qua the respondents.  

11. In other words, we are not required to examine

the question as to whether the  High Court was

justified in dismissing the respondents’ appeals for

two reasons: first, these appeals are filed  by the

5

landowners against the rejection of their cross

objection and second, the respondents did not file

any appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by

the High Court.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting

aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to the

dismissal  of the cross objection,  remand the case

(cross objection) to the High Court for deciding the

cross objection on its merits in accordance with law.

14. Two questions fell for consideration before the

High Court:  first, whether the Reference Court was

right in awarding Rs.5,00,000/­ per bigha by way of

compensation to the landowners and second,

whether any case was made out for enhancement of

the amount of compensation than what was

6

awarded to them by the Reference Court by its

award dated 31.03.2009.  

15. So  far  as first  question  is  concerned, it  was

required to  be  decided  by the  High  Court  at the

instance of the State/NTPC in their appeals whereas

so far as the second question is concerned, it was

required to be decided at the instance of the

landowners in their cross objection.  

16. It cannot be disputed that the appellants

(landowners) had two remedies to question the

legality or/and correctness of the award passed by

the  Reference  Court.  One remedy  was  by  way  of

appeal under Section 54 of the Act and the other

remedy was to file cross objection under Order 41

Rule 22 of the Code in the appeal filed by the

State/NTPC. In this case, the landowners took

recourse to second remedy of filing the cross

objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code.

7

17. The High Court having dismissed the appeals

filed by the State/NTPC was, therefore, required to

examine as to whether any case was made out by

the landowners (appellants herein) in their cross

objection for enhancement of compensation.  

18. We find from the impugned order that the High

Court, in para 24, dismissed the cross objection

without  assigning any reason.  The order  rejecting

the cross objection reads as under:

24. Cross­objection, if any, shall also stand disposed of.   

19. Order 41 Rule 22(4) of the Code, provides that

where, in  any  case in  which any respondent  has

under this rule  filed a memorandum of  objection,

the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for

default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be

heard and determined after such notice to the other

parties as the Court thinks fit.

8

20. In our considered opinion, merely because the

High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the

respondents herein though on merits,  yet  that  by

itself would not result in dismissal of the

landowners’  cross objection also. In our view,  the

cross objection had to be disposed of on its merits

notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeals as

provided by in Order 41 Rule 22 (4) of the Code by

assigning reasons.  

21. In other  words,  even  though the  High Court

dismissed the appeals of the State/NTPC on merits

yet it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to

have independently examined the issues raised by

the landowners (respondents in appeal) before the

High Court in the cross objection with a view to find

out as to whether any case was made out on facts

by the landowners for further enhancement in the

compensation and, if so, to what extent. The

9

question as to whether any case for enhancement of

compensation is made out or not was required to be

decided on appreciation of the evidence adduced by

the parties on the issue of  market value of the

acquired land keeping in view the parameters laid

down in Section 23 of the Act.

22. In our view, the High Court failed to examine

the aforesaid question while dealing with the cross

objection of the landowners and wrongly rejected it

without assigning any reason as is clear  from the

order quoted  above.  Rejection  of cross  objection

without any discussion and reason cannot be

countenanced. It is not, therefore, legally

sustainable.  

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned

order insofar as it relates to dismissal of the

10

appellants’ (landowners) cross objection (Para 24) is

set aside.  

24. The case  is  remanded to the  High Court for

deciding the cross objection filed by the appellants

(landowners) in accordance with law with a view to

find out as to whether any case on evidence is made

out by the appellants (landowners) for claiming

further enhancement of the amount of

compensation  determined  by the  Reference  Court

and, if so, to what extent and, if not, why.  

25.  The High Court will first verify as to whether

the landowners have valued their claim made in the

cross objection and, if so,  whether they paid ad

velorum court fees on the claim. If the landowners

neither valued and nor paid the ad velorum court

fees on the claim, they shall be granted reasonable

time to first value their claim and pay ad velorum

court fees on such claim. Once the court  fees, as

11

required under the Court fees Act, is paid by   the

landowners, the cross objection be decided strictly

in accordance with law without disturbing the main

order passed in the appeals filed by the State/NTPC

which, as mentioned above, has attained finality.    

26. We,  however  make  it  clear  that  we have not

applied our mind to the question as to whether any

case was made out by the appellants (landowners)

for any enhancement in award of compensation.

The High Court would accordingly decide the cross

objection on its merit strictly in accordance with law

without being influenced by any of our observations

made in this order.      

                                    .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                    

    …...……..................................J.              [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; July 16, 2019

12