The Supreme Court will not determine disputed facts under Article 136 while first appeals remain pending.

Land measuring approximately 34.72 acres was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for JK Paper Ltd. The Special Land Acquisition Officer assessed compensation at ₹124 per square metre; the Reference Court enhanced it to ₹950 per square metre, with additional statutory and other amounts.

Both the company and the landowners appealed to the Gujarat High Court, and the company sought stays of the award and execution proceedings. The High Court stayed the award and execution subject to a deposit, after which the parties challenged its interim order before the Supreme Court.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, the remaining approximately 24.77 acres was handed over to the company, and the company’s possession of the entire acquired land was reported.

The company also disputed the effect of a gorge and other encumbrances on the land’s usability; the landowners sought higher compensation.

1. Whether the Supreme Court should determine disputed factual questions concerning possession, the land’s usable area and the compensation payable while the first appeals remained pending before the High Court.

2. Whether the High Court’s stay of the award and execution proceedings should continue, and on what conditions.

3. Whether the company could raise before the High Court its claim that a gorge and other encumbrances reduced the usable area of the acquired land.

Proceedings for the acquisition were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

A first appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and ordinarily permits reconsideration of questions of law and fact; the first appellate court must address the issues and evidence and give reasoned findings. The Court relied on Malluru Mallappa (Dead) v. Kuruvathappa & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC 313, for these principles.

The Supreme Court also stated that it would not use its jurisdiction under Article 136 to determine disputed questions of fact where the pending first appeals made the High Court the appropriate fact-finding forum.

The Court found that questions concerning when and to what extent the company had obtained possession remained disputed and could affect the final compensation. Those questions were therefore for the High Court to determine in the pending appeals, rather than for the Supreme Court to decide under Article 136.

It rejected the company’s claim that the gorge and other encumbrances reduced the usable land, noting that the company had known of them since the acquisition proceedings began in 2005; the company could not raise that issue again before the High Court.

Given the substantial compensation involved, the Court considered an additional deposit necessary to maintain the interim protection while the High Court considered the appeals.

The High Court’s stay was to continue for two months, during which the company was directed to deposit an additional ₹15 crore with the High Court’s Registrar General. If the company failed to deposit that amount, the stay of the award and execution proceedings would stand revoked; if it deposited the amount, the stay would continue until further orders of the High Court. The deposit is to be invested in a short-term, interest-bearing fixed deposit on an auto-renewal basis.

The High Court was requested to expedite the first appeals, taking account of the delivery of the remaining land to the company; all issues were left open except the company’s claim concerning the gorge and encumbrances.