Avoid Shortcut Approach In Judgments; Courts Must Adjudicate All Issues : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.

Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

In this case, the following issues were raised in a writ petition challenging land acquisitions:

a.Whether the disposal of these petitioners should be deferred pending adjudication and determination by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk of the excess holdings or otherwise under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 of the very lands which are the subject matter herein.

b. Whether the possession of a portion of the lands in question having said to have been given to APMC can be said to be valid and in accordance with law.

c. Whether the invocation of Section 17 of the LA Act in the acquisition of a portion of the lands for the same purpose was justified.

d. Whether the acquiring authority could keeping abeyance the mandate to pay or deposit the compensation amount pending disposal of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in respect of the lands.

e. Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act.

The High Court allowed the writ petition answering issue (e) only by holding that that respective acquisitions have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that, in view of the judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, the judgment passed by the High Court holding that the acquisitions have lapsed under sub­section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013, is not sustainable.

The court further noted that though a number of other issues were raised on the legality of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 and though other points for consideration were raised/framed by the High Court, none of the issues are adjudicated by the High Court on merits.

We have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues, other than the lapse of acquisitions under sub­section (2) of section 24 of the Act, the bench said. In this context, the court observed:

"Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved."

Case details

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore vs State of Karnataka | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307 | CA 1345­-1346 OF 2022 | 22 March 2022

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Counsel: Sr. Adv V. Giri for appellant, Adv V.N. Raghupathy for the State, Sr. Adv C.U. Singh for respondents

Headnotes

Practice and Procedure - Courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved - Adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue, would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. (Para 8.4)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ; Section 24 - Lapse of acquisition  [Referred to Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 ] (Para 9)

Summary: Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed writ petition answering only one issue, though four other issues were raised - Allowed - Remanded the matter to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment