Appeal No 3656 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 5121988 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 1695 of 1986
OP Rana and Girish Chandra for the Appellants
BD Agarwal and R D
Upadhyay for the Respondents
121 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
Special leave is granted
This appeal is directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition of the respondents Nos 1 to 5 under Article 226 of the Constitu tion and directing that they shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute in pursuance of an eviction decree passed by the small causes court Allahabad
The main ques tion which arises for decision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and proceeding to issue the impugned direc tion
The appellants are the owners of the premises in question which according to their case was in possession of Dr KC Sinha as tenant
After his death his son Prabhas Kumar Sinha respondent No 7 continued in possession
The writ petitioners respondents are the sons of the brothers of Dr KC Sinha and according to their case they being members of the joint Hindu Family along with Dr KC Sinha are tenants in their own right under the appellants
The case of the appellants is that they were subsequently in ducted in the premises as sub tenants by Prabhas Kumar Sinha and did not have any independent right
The eviction suit in the small causes court was filed by the appellants against Prabhas Kumar Sinha for his evic tion without impleading the writ petitioners and the decree passed therein is under challenge by the judgment debtor Prabhas Kumar Sinha in revision before the High Court
In this background the respondents No 1 to 5 ap proached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu tion claiming that they not being parties in the eviction case are not bound by the decree
The appellants in support of their denial of the claim of independent right as tenants of the writ petition ers pleaded supporting facts and circumstances in detail inter alia alleging that the writ petitioners have deliber ately concealed the fact they were parties in an immediately preceding case under the provisions of the Rent Act for release of the premises in favour of the landlord appellants and that the release order was ultimately made by the dele gated authority overruling their objection
The High Court has held that since the claim of the writ petitioners was not examined and decided in the suit and the decree was passed against Prabhas Kumar Sinha only they cannot be evicted from the premises unless a decree is expressly passed against them
It has been 122 observed that the appellants must proceed to file a suit against the writ petitioners and obtain a decree against them if they intend to eject them
It has been contended and in our view correctly that if the claim of the writ petitioners of being in pos session of the premises as tenants in their own right is rejected and they are held to have been inducted by Prabhas Kumar Sinha or his father Dr KC Sinha they are liable to be evicted in execution of the present decree
It was therefore necessary to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and record a finding on the character of posses sion of the writ petitioners before proceeding to consider whether the decree is executable or not against them and having not done so the High Court has seriously erred in law in allowing the writ petition by the impugned judgment
The decision on the disputed issue was dependent on the consideration of the evidence to be led by the parties and while exercising the writ jurisdiction the High Court was not expected to go into that question
In the circumstances the Court ought to have refused to dispose of the writ petition on merits leaving the writ petitioners to avail of the remedy before the civil court
The error in the judgment as pointed out earlier was the consequence of the initial mistake in entertaining the petition
The principle as to when the High Court should exercise its special jurisdiction under Article 226 and when to refuse to do so on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy has been settled by a long line of cases
The remedy provided under Article 226 is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief before a civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions
As was observed in State of Andhra Pradesh vs Chitra Venkata Rao  the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory in nature and is not meant for correcting errors like an appellate court
In Thansingh Nathmal and Ors
A Mazid  a case dealing with liability to pay sales tax the appellants without following the statutory remedy under the Sales Tax Act moved the High Court under Article 226 on the ground that the Act was ultra vires
The challenge was rejected
Another contention namely that the finding of the Commissioner that the goods were actually within the State at the time of the contract was based on no evidence and was purely specu lative was also raised
This ground also failed before the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed
Approving the decision this Court observed that if the appellants had persued the statutory remedy under the Act and the question had been referred to the High Court the Court could have appropriately advised the Commissioner but not having done so the High Court could not be asked to assume the role of an appellate 123 court over the decision of the Commissioner either on a question of fact or even of law
Again when a learned Single Judge of the High Court and on appeal a Division Bench proceeded to examine the correctness of an order in relation to grant of a permit to ply a vehicle under the Motor Vehi cles Act it was observed by this Court in M Naina Mohammed vs KA Natarajan  Ors 1976 1 SCR 102 that the power under Article 226 is supervisory in nature and the Judges at both the tiers had unwittingly slipped into the subtle but fatal error of exercising a kind of appellate review
So far the question of executability of a decree is concerned the Civil Procedure Code contains elaborate and exhaustive provisions for dealing with it in all its aspects
The numerous rules of order XXI of the Code take care of differ ent situations providing effective remedies not only to judgment debtors and decree holders but also to claimant objectors as the case may be
In an exceptional case where provisions are rendered incapable of giving relief to an aggrieved party in adequate measure and appropriate time the answer is a regular suit in the civil court
The remedy under the Civil Procedure Code is of superior judicial quality than what is generally available under other stat utes and the Judge being entrusted exclusively with admin istration of justice is expected to do better
It will be therefore difficult to find a case where interference in writ jurisdiction for granting relief to a judgment debtor or a claimant objector can be justified
The rules 97 to 106 of order XXI envisage questions as in the present appeal to be determined on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and after the 1976 Amendment the decision has been made appealable like a decree
The High Court in the present case therefore ought not to have embarked upon a decision of the writ petition on merits and should have refused to exercise its special jurisdiction on the ground of alternative remedy before the civil court
We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of the respondents without exami nation of the merits of the rival cases of the parties
The appeal is allowed with costs assessed at Rs2000  NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellants  lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act
The appellants claimed land value at the rate of Rs 10 per sq yard but the Land Acquisition Offi cer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs088 per sq yard
On a reference the Sub Judge determined the market value at Rs 11 per sq yard on the basis of certain com parable transactions but granted the compensation at the rate of Rs I0 as the appellants themselves had claimed only at that rate
On an appeal preferred by the Respondent State the High Court determined the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs 650 per sq yard and reduced the total compensation following the decision of this Court in Tribeni Devi vs Collector Ranchi AIR 1972 SC 141 that a deduction of 13 of the value is to be made when large extent of land is acquired under housing scheme
Aggrieved by the High Court s decision the appellants preferred the present appeals contending that the High Court had erroneously applied the principle laid down in Tribeni Devi s case without properly appreciating the nature of the land in question and the purpose for which it had been acquired
It was further contended that there was no justification for making any deduction since the land in question was fully developed and eminently suitable for being used as house sites
Even in respect of the land acquired for the purpose of formation of the road it was argued the High Court wrongly proceeded on the basis that expenses have to be incurred for development
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that the appellants  lands form part of large tract acquired for the purpose of construction of 173 houses that the other transaction based on which compensa tion was decided by the Sub Judge related to small plots of land which were fully developed and while comparing the transactions it was necessary to take into account the development that is required to be made for bringing the acquired land suitable for the purpose of construction and that 13 of the value was rightly deducted
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD 1
The principle of deduction in the laud value covered by the comparable sale is adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land
In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts
It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisi tion the only relevant factor
Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position
If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads drainage electricity communications etc
then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired may not be justified
177 D
Tribeni Devi vs Collector Ranchi   distinguished
Kaushalya Devi vs Land Acquisition Officer   Administrator General of West Bengal vs Collector Varanasi   Special Tahsildar Land Acquisi tion Vishakapatnam vs Smt A Mangala Gown   relied on
2 In the instant case the lands involved are of even level and fit for construction without the necessity for levelling or reclamation
Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction
177 F H 3
The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circum stances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land
If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a 174 developed area with little or no requirement of further development the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted
With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possi ble to utilise the entire area in question as house sites
In respect of the land acquired for the road the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development
178 BC