TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Restores Original Compensation, Criticizes State's Discriminatory Practices in Compensation Appeals.</h1> The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to reduce the compensation amount from Rs.4,61,250 to Rs.4,15,000 per acre, reinstating the ... Reduction of compensation amount from Rs.4,61,250 to Rs.4,15,000 per acre - Affirmation of High Court's judgment by the Supreme Court - State's withdrawal of appeals and discrimination in compensation - HELD THAT:- By now, it is a settled principle of law that the dismissal of the special leave petition in limine does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court. Unless the judgment of the High Court is affirmed, at least, with short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent - It would be seen that learned Reference Court by discussing the entire evidence, has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/ per acre. The Reference court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250/ per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 08.03.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I.A. No. 59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by the respondents - The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. The impugned judgment and order dated 20th January 2015 passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of the Reference Court dated 14th March 2012 is restored - Appeal allowed. Issues:1. Reduction of compensation amount from Rs.4,61,250 to Rs.4,15,000 per acre.2. Affirmation of High Court's judgment by the Supreme Court.3. State's withdrawal of appeals and discrimination in compensation.Analysis:Issue 1: Reduction of compensation amountThe Supreme Court addressed the issue of reduction of compensation from Rs.4,61,250 to Rs.4,15,000 per acre. The appellants argued that the Reference Court had initially awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250 per acre, and there was no valid reason for the High Court to reduce it. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the High Court's decision was based on a previous order that had attained finality. The Court emphasized that the dismissal of a special leave petition does not necessarily affirm the High Court's judgment unless there is a clear affirmation with reasoning. After considering the evidence and the State's actions, the Court concluded that the appellants should be awarded the compensation amount determined by the Reference Court, setting aside the High Court's decision.Issue 2: Affirmation of High Court's judgmentThe Supreme Court clarified that the mere dismissal of a special leave petition does not amount to an affirmation of the High Court's decision. The Court highlighted that for a judgment to be considered a binding precedent, it must be affirmed with reasoning. In this case, the Court found that the High Court's decision to reduce the compensation amount was not justified, especially considering the Reference Court's detailed evaluation of the evidence. Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Reference Court's order.Issue 3: State's withdrawal of appeals and discrimination in compensationThe Court also addressed the State's actions regarding the withdrawal of appeals and the differential treatment in compensation. It noted that the State had filed applications to withdraw appeals related to similar acquisition notifications where the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250 per acre. The Court criticized the State for adopting a selective approach in accepting awards, emphasizing that such behavior amounted to discrimination and was unacceptable. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants, highlighting the importance of consistency and non-discrimination in awarding compensation in such cases.In a separate judgment, the Court allowed another appeal, citing a previous order and conditions. However, it specified that the appellant would not be entitled to interest for the delayed period in filing the appeal. The Court disposed of any pending applications related to this appeal as well.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
