ivil Appeal Nos
3159 3170 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 30121985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No 2578 to 2583 of 1985
K Rajendra Chowdhary and A Subba Rao for the Appellants
PA Choudhary TVSN Chari Mrs Sunita Rao Badrinath and K Ram Kumar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
We grant Special Leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals
These appeals are from a judgment dated 3 December 1985 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings
The lands in question are situated in Hasanapur of Karimnagar Taluk
The lands are acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam Reservoir project
SeCtion 41 notification was issued on 24 March 1977
The land acquisition officer by his award dated 15 July 1978 awarded compensation ranging from Rs1320 to 4000 per acre depending upon the nature of the land and the crop grown PG NO 855 thereon
The District Judge on a reference under section 18 of the Act enhanced the compensation to Rs85000 per acre regardless of categorisation
The High Court by the Judgment under appeals herein has remanded the matter for fresh disposal with liberty for both parties to adduce additional evidence
The high Court has specifically observed that the District Judge should exclude exhibit A 4 and exhibit A 5 from consideration
exhibit A 4 and exhibit A 5 are the awards pertaining to acquisition of certain lands situated in Karimnagar
Thereunder compensation at the rate of Rs 85000 per acre under exhibit A4 and Rs70000 under exhibit A5 were given
The High Court has observed that the lands concerned in those awards are not comparable lands
Hence these appeals
The first question that arises for consideration is whether exhibit A5 should be altogether excluded or it should be kept open for being considered by the District Judge on merits
This is the specific question on which this Court issued notice on the Special Leave petition
If first part of the question is answered in the negative then the second question for consideration is whether the matter should go back to District Judge for fresh disposal
We heard counsel on both sides on the merits of the entire matter
The claimants have alleged that the lands acquired are fit for residential houses as they are adjacent to industrial estate
MARKFED factory Vanaspathi complex diary farm and Padmanagar colony
The lands have potentiality of being used as house sites and the like of which was sold for Rs5000 per gunta prior to the present acquisition
The lands are near to Karimnagar town The town is developing into a modern town in Andhra Pradesh with a lot of industrial commercial educational activities
They have claimed compensation at Rs160000 per acre for dry lands and a little more for wet lands
The evidence in support of their claim consists of the testimony of one of the claimants PW 1
He has given a rosy picture of the location and value of the lands
Another witness PW 2 has corroborated the version of PW 1
Besides we have the evidence of a Commissioner
Mr G Santosh Reddy Advocate was appointed as Commissioner in this case
He has filed his report exhibit A7 and Plan
PG NO 856 The High Court appears to have brushed aside all that evidence
The High Court compared the combined map of karimnagar and Hasnapur village exhibit A3 with the sketch map exhibit A8 prepared by the Commissioner
The High Court was of opinion that the lands concerned in exhibit
A5 are abutting Karimnagar town
They are close to MARKFED and other industrial institutions and buildings but not the lands in question
The High Court said whereas admittedly the lands in question are 3 kms from Karimnagar town
This statement has been seriously disputed before us
It is said that the claimants or their counsel did not admit and indeed could not have made that admission suicidal to their case
Be that as it may the distance determined by the High Court whether on admission or by comparison of village maps makes little difference
The distance from Karimnagar town should not be a ground to reject exhibit A5
If the lands are suitable for house sites exhibit A5 would still be relevant
The location of lands will have to be borne in mind while ascertaining the market value
As to the nature of lands we have the evidence of the Commissioner
He is an Advocate of the local Bar
He had gone to the spot
He had a topographic surveying
According to his evidence the lands in question are similar in nature and of value as the lands covered under the Award exhibit A5
The lands are nearer to collectorate complex RTC Bus stand and other housing complex
He has stated that the lands are more suitable for house sites than for agriculture
There is no reason to discard this evidence
We cannot therefore reject exhibit A5 altogether
The next question for consideration is whether it is now necessary to keep the remand order undisturbed
Counsel for the claimants  is totally against the matter being sent back to the District Judge
He urged that the claimants are small holders and agriculturists
they are hard pressed and unable to fight another round of litigation
I hey are prepared to accept any compensation which this Court may think fit to award
This plea of the counsel has an appealing simplicity
It reflects the facts of life and problems of litigation
We can very well appreciate the anxiety and need of claimants to get compensation here and now
No matter what it is
The lands were acquired as far back in 1977
One decade has already passed
Now the remand means another round of litigation
There would be further delay in getting the compensation
After all money is what money PG NO 857 buys
What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988
Perhaps not even one half of it
It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling
With rising inflation the delayed payment may lose all charm and utility of the compensation
In some cases the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants
The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation
They totally depend upon land
If uprooted they will find themselves nowhere
They are left high and dry
They have no savings to draw
They have nothing to fall back upon
They know no other work
They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated
In all such cases it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay
The enhanced compensation must be determined with out loss of time
The appellate power of remand at any rate ought not to be exercised lightly
It shall not be resorted to unless the award is wholly unintelligible
It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence
If remand is imperative and if the claim for enhance I compensation is tenable it would be proper for the appellate court to do modest best to mitigate hardships
The appellate court may direct some interim payment to claimants subject t o adjustment in the eventual award
Counsel for the State argued that there is no material on record for this Court to determine compensation and the remand may be useful for the claimants themselves
He however
reluctantly indicated his own estimate of the market value in the event of this Court giving a quietus to the litigation
It seems to us that this is not a case ot no evidence
This is a case of both relevant and irrelevant evidence mixed up together
We must exclude the irrelevant and exaggerated claim
The claimants have not justified the award generously given by the District Judge
Rs 85000 per acre appears to be on the high side as against the award exhibit A5
In the first place Section 4 notification concerned in that Award was dated 16 February l978
It was almost a year after the notification in these cases
Secondly the lands therein were close to the town of Karimrtagar
The situation is not similar in this case
Here the lands are 3 kms awy from Karimnagar town
It is in this background I we have carefully considered the rough estimates given by counsel on both sides
We have also examined the relevant material
A distance of 3 kms from a growing town of District headquarters should not however
make a world of difference
We are of opinion that the compensation at the rate of Rs25000 per acre regardless of categorisation would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice
It is needless to state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory solatium PG NO 858 at 30 per cent and also statutory interest
In the result we allow these appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court and District Judge
There shall be an award in terms as indicated above
In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
MLA Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant an employee of Respondent No 1 was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as also a criminal prosecution simultaneously on the allegation that he physically assaulted a supervising officer
He filed a civil action in the trial court asking for injunction against the disciplinary action pending criminal trial
The trial court stayed further proceedings in the disciplinary action till disposal of the criminal case
In appeal the appellate court affirmed the aforesaid order
However the High Court allowed the Revision Application of the Respondent and set aside the impugned order on the ground that there is no bar for an employer to proceed with the departmental proceeding with regard to the same allegation for which a criminal case is pending
Allowing the appeal to this Court HELD l
The order of the High Court is vacated and that of the trial court as affirmed in appeal is restored
The criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings were grounded upon the same set of facts
The disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court s order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal
826A B 2i While there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case
In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court
825E F 2ii Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the PG NO 821 PG NO 822 disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending criminal trial
825F G The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan   Tata Oil Mills Co Ltd vs Its Workmen  and Jung Bahadur Singh vs Baij Nath Tiwari   relied upon
Rama P C vs Superintendent of Police Kolar  Anr AIR  Ali Mohd  Ors
vs Chairman TA  C Udhampur  Moulindra Singh vs The Deputy Commissioner  Ors 1564 Shaikh Kasim vs Superintendent of Post Office Chingletut AIR 1965 Mad 502 Khusi Ram vs Union of India and Project Manager ONGC vs Lal Chand Wazir Chand Chandna  referred to
It is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast straight jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation