Appeal involving compensation below ₹5 lakh dismissed for smallness, without adjudicating merits or legal issues.

The State, through the Executive Engineer, Building and Road Department, Amreli, filed a first appeal challenging the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court in land-acquisition proceedings.

The compensation amount involved was below ₹5,00,000.

The original claimant submitted that, under the State Government’s litigation policy embodied in Government Resolution dated 25 October 2016, claims below ₹5,00,000 were treated as petty claims and appeals involving such amounts were required to be withdrawn before the Lok Adalat.

Although Lok Adalats had been held after institution of the appeal, the appeal had not been withdrawn.

The State’s learned AGP did not dispute the existence or applicability of the Government Resolution.

The appeal was heard along with applications concerning stay and withdrawal/disbursement of the deposited compensation amount.

The Court applied the State Government’s litigation policy contained in Revenue Department Government Resolution dated 25 October 2016, under which claims up to ₹5,00,000 are treated as petty claims and land-acquisition matters involving less than that amount are to be withdrawn before the Lok Adalat.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that an appeal falling within such a policy should not remain pending indefinitely merely until a future Lok Adalat, and may be disposed of during regular hearing.

Dismissal on account of the smallness of the amount is not an adjudication on the merits and does not decide or establish any legal issue or issue concerning compensation in other matters arising from the same notification.

The Court noted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was below the ₹5,00,000 threshold prescribed by the Government Resolution.

Since the State itself did not dispute the applicability of the Resolution, the appeal fell within the category of matters regarded as petty claims and intended for withdrawal before the Lok Adalat.

The Court held that the appeal could not be kept pending indefinitely merely because it had not been withdrawn at an earlier Lok Adalat; in light of the State policy and the small amount involved, it declined to examine the appeal on merits.

To avoid any implication that the underlying legal or compensation questions had been decided, the Court expressly limited the dismissal to the ground of smallness of the amount and clarified that the decision would not constitute a precedent.

The Court clarified that the dismissal was not a decision on any legal issue or on the proper quantum of compensation and would not operate as a precedent in other matters arising from the same notification.

The connected applications were disposed of accordingly.

The Registry was directed to return the record and proceedings to the concerned court.

The Reference Court was directed to disburse the deposited compensation, after deducting court fee, to the claimant(s) with interest, subject to due verification, identification, and verification of their entitlement.