Judgment Must Have Clarity On Exact Relief Granted So As To Avoid Difficulty In Execution : Supreme Court

In a matter related to land acquisition, the Supreme Court recently observed that judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution.

The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna made this observation while considering appeals preferred by the claimants landowners assailing Jharkhand High Court's order dated March 28, 2019 ("impugned order").

In the impugned order, the High Court had observed that the Sale deed dated February 12, 1979 had to be considered for determination of the market value as the same was in a close proximity in time to the date of notification dated October 1, 1980. The High Court however did not assess and/or determine the actual market value and/or compensation to be payable to the landowners.

While partly allowing the appeal, the bench in Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. State Of Jharkhand said,

"Even otherwise, it is to be noted that there is no clarity on the actual market price and while passing the final order, the High Court has not stated the exact market value and/or the amount of compensation to be paid. There is no actual assessment and/or determination of market value and/or the compensation. How on such a vague order, a decree can be drawn and how such an order is executable? The judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. Every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from the Court. But the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court lacks total clarity."

Factual Background

Appellant's land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Act, 1894") for public purpose. A notification u/s 4 was published on October 1, 1980 wherein the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 180/- per decimal. The original landowners made references to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

Before the Reference Court, the claimants heavily relied upon the Sale Deed registered between the years 1977 to 1979 which was discarded by the Court by observing that the valuation of the acquired land had been rightly determined and upheld the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Aggrieved, the appellants had approached the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgement observed that the Sale deed dated February 12, 1979 had to be considered for determination of the market value as the same was in a close proximity in time to the date of notification dated October 1, 1980.

The High Court disposed of the appeals and modified the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court to the extent that the compensation was to be assessed and paid on the basis of the sale Deed dated February 12, 1979 and not on the basis of the Sale Deed dated December 29, 1976.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The bench in the judgment authored by Justice MR Shah to adjudicate on the issue referred to the impugned judgment to point out that the High Court had not discussed at all the sale consideration as well as the location of the land so far as the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 is concerned.

Referring to the judgement in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, bench said, "It is to be noted that there is no detailed discussion by the High Court by taking into account the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the market price."

The bench further said,

"It is also required to be noted that there was a time gap of one year and eight months between the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 and the Section 4 notification. Therefore, if ultimately, it is found that both are absolutely comparable, in that case, even suitable price rise at the rate of 12% per annum may also have to be considered. However, the High Court has mechanically held that the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation considering the price/sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979. While considering the sale deed/sale exemplar, the proximity in time to the date of sale deed and to the date of notification under Section 4 may be a relevant factor but at the same time, other factors, as observed hereinabove are also required to be taken into consideration while determining the actual market price of the acquired land."

With this reasoning, the bench quashed the order dated March 28, 2019 and remitted the appeals to the High Court for the same to be considered and decided afresh.

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 28.03.2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 40 of 2007 and 41 of 2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the appeals are remitted to the High Court to consider and decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after considering the relevant factors while considering the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 as a sale exemplar and thereafter to decide and determine the exact market value and the compensation to be paid to the original claimants. For the aforesaid purpose, the appeals before the High court are ordered to be restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court shall make all endeavors to finally decide and dispose of the appeals on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the present order," Court said.

Case Title: Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. V. State Of Jharkhand| Civil Appeal No. 1762 Of 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 273

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment