Full Judgment Text
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 :
th
“In the present case the notification is dated 26
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