Secr.,Agricul.Produce Market Commtt vs Quasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla & Anr

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 :

"In the present case the notification is dated 26th 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