On July 4, 2023, the judgment in case of “Dheeraj Singh Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors.”¹ was rendered by a bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court consisting of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi mandating the courts to consider the cross-objections filed during an appeal. The dispute originated from the acquisition of lands by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (“GNIDA”) in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands were acquired by the state government of Uttar Pradesh, and possession was taken between August 1993 and May 1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the plots using different rates.

The appellants herein, who were the original landowners (“Appellants”), contested the quantum of compensation awarded for the acquisition, asserting that it was inadequate compared to the compensation granted for similar lands in the vicinity and sought parity with them. The District Judge determined the market value of the lands at INR 267/- per square yard after deducting development charges. Aggrieved with this decision, both the Appellants and GNIDA filed appeals before the High Court of Delhi. However, the High Court upheld the compensation as determined by the District Judge, disregarding the Appellants' cross objections. Subsequently, the Appellants filed a review, which was dismissed, leading to the filing of Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Appellants raised a crucial contention that their cross objections, filed during the appeal, were not given due consideration by the High Court while delivering its judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to analyze the impugned order passed by the High Court, assessing whether the High Court had duly considered the cross objections submitted by the appellants. It further examined Order 41 Rule 22² of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), which governs the remedies available to a respondent in the court of first appeal where an original decree has been challenged.

The Court, thereafter, explained the remedies available to the respondent in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance is partly in favour of the respondent and partly against. The two remedies available to such aggrieved respondent as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC are (i) to file their cross objections and, (ii) to support the decree in whole. The Apex Court further held that whilst the High Court has given a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in the appeal, however, the cross objections in specific, found no mention and/or discussion in the same.

Justice Krishna Murari, delivering the judgment, emphasized that cross objections hold the same status as a regular appeal and must be considered in their entirety by the court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs³, Madhukar and Ors. Vs. Sangram and Ors.⁴ and Jitendra Prasad Nayak Vs. Anant kumar Sah and Anr.⁵, held that the court of appeal has a duty to apply its mind to all issues raised before it, and to discharge such duty, it must also record its findings against all such issues raised.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had failed in its obligation to fully consider the cross objections along with other issues raised in the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the matter should be remanded back to the High Court for fresh adjudication specifically on the grounds raised in the cross objections.

The judgment underscores the significance of a thorough examination of all claims and arguments presented by the parties involved and emphasized on the duty of the courts to consider cross objections and the consequences of failing to do so. It promotes the principles of fairness and equality by allowing the Appellants a renewed opportunity to present their case and have their cross objections duly considered.

By - Muskan Maheshwari and Jagrit Verma