Suresh Kumar vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 1372 MP

1           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :
                       BENCH AT INDORE
                        WP No.7260/2021
         Suresh Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Indore: Dated:-07 /04/2021:-
         Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
         Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
State.
         With the consent, finally heard.
                            ORDER

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 19/02/2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer, Garoth, District-Mandsaur has modified the award by passing the attached order dated 19/02/2021.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an award dated 20/01/2021 was passed whereby amount of compensation in favour of petitioner was determined. The note-sheet dated 19/02/2021 (Annexure P/1) shows that learned Land Acquisition Officer received some phone call from the Project Director, Indian National Highway Authority, Ratlam and on the strength of which he decided to reduce and modify the amount of compensation in the award dated 30/01/2021. Consequently, he passed a "revised/modified" order and reduced the amount of compensation unilaterally. It was called in question on twin grounds:- (i) after passing the award dated 30/01/2021, the SDO became "functus officio" and had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to modify the award. (ii) There is no enabling provision in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which enables him to undertake the aforesaid exercise moreso when the beneficiary/petitioner was not even put to notice. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Chhatisgarh High Court in WP (C) No.665/2019 (Mahesh Nachrani & Ors. vs. Union of India & 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH :

BENCH AT INDORE WP No.7260/2021 Suresh Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ors.) decided on 14/09/2020.

3) The prayer is opposed by learned Dy. Advocate General, who supported the impugned order. However, no enabling provision could be pointed out which permits the SDO to undertake the exercise of passing modified order dated 19/02/2021. In absence of showing any enabling provision, we are unable to countenance the order dated 19/02/2021 whereby without authority, jurisdiction and competence, the SDO has unilaterally reduced the amount of compensation.

4) Resultantly, the impugned order dated 19/02/2021 is set aside. This order will not come in the way of Competent Authority to take action if law so permits.

CC as per rules.

     (SUJOY PAUL)                         (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
       JUDGE                                      JUDGE

soumya


 Digitally signed
 by SOUMYA
 RANJAN DALAI
 Date: 2021.04.07
 18:13:16 +05'30'