Judgement must have clarity on exact relief granted by court: SC

The Supreme Court Thursday said a judgement must have clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the court so that it may not create further complication or difficulty in execution.

Observing that every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from the court, the apex court quashed the March 2019 judgement of the Jharkhand High Court passed in a matter related to land acquisition.

A bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed that the judgement passed by the high court in the matter lacks total clarity.

The top court 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 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 judgement 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 said.

The bench delivered its verdict on the appeals against the high court judgement passed in the matter about the acquisition of land in a village in Jharkhand under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for public purpose.

It noted that a notification under section 4 of the Act was published on October 1, 1980, and the land acquisition officer awarded Rs 180 per decimal.

The bench also noted that at the instance of original landowners, references were made to the district court under section 18 of the Act and the claimants had heavily relied upon the sale deed registered between the years 1977 to 1979.

The reference court had discarded all the sale deeds and dismissed the respective references observing that the valuation of the acquired land has been rightly determined.

The original claimants then preferred appeals before the high court, which observed that the sale deed of February 12, 1979, has to be considered for determination of market value as the same is in close proximity in time to the date of notification.

The high court had disposed of the appeals and modified the judgments and awards passed by the reference court to the extent that compensation was to be assessed and paid based on the sale deed of February 12, 1979, and not based on the December 1976 sale deed.

In its verdict, the top court noted that the high court had mechanically held that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation considering the price/sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed of February 12, 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, it 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, the bench said.

While setting aside the high court judgement, the apex court said the appeals are remitted to the high court to consider and decide them afresh in accordance with law and on merits.

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, it said.