Supreme Court Rules: State or its Instrumentalities Cannot be Permitted to Adopt an Attitude of Pick and Choose
Supreme Court Rules: State or its Instrumentalities Cannot be Permitted to Adopt an Attitude of Pick and Choose
The Supreme Court by its coram comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar while allowing an appeal in a land acquisition matter remarked that, State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
In the present case, the Reference Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250 per acre. The High Court while partly allowing the appeal filed by the State, reduced it to Rs. 4,15,000 per acre.
The Apex Court while considering the appeal, reiterated that by now, it is a settled principle of law that the dismissal of the special leave petition in limine does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court.
The bench was of the view, “Unless the judgment of the High Court is affirmed, at least, with short reasoning, the same would not amount to binding precedent.”
The Apex Court noted that the learned Reference Court by discussing the entire evidence, had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250 per acre.
Further, the Court considered another factor that the respondent-State itself had filed applications before the High Court for withdrawal of nine appeals arising out of acquisition under the same notification.
The Court noted in that case also, the Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250 per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 8 March, 2016 had allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before the Apex Court.
It was noted by the bench that, although a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position was not contested by the respondents.
To this, the bench remarked, “The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination.”
Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal and restored the order passed by the Reference Court.
