Executive Engineer Wrd Panna vs Prembahadur
2022 Latest Caselaw 16249 MP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                   AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
              ON THE 08th OF DECEMBER, 2022

                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 718/2022

BETWEEN:-
1. Executive Engineer WRD Panna,
   Through WRD Panna, Panna,
   Madhya Pradesh.

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue
   And Land Acquisition Officer,
   Tehsil Gunnor, District Panna
   M.P..
                                                 .............APPLICANTS
(BY   SHRI    DEVESH              JAIN-LEARNED
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND

   Prembahadur    S/D/W/Through:-
   Sunderlal Awasthi, Kathwariya,
   Tehsil Gunnor, District Panna,
   Panna, Madhya Pradesh
                                                  ...........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI R.P. MISHRA-LEARNED ADVOCATE)
........................................................................................................

      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Court of learned 1 st Additional District Judge, Panna in MJC No. 22/2019. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Lands belonging to the respondent/plaintiff being Araji No. No.1424/1, 1423/1, 1426/2 and 1427/2 admeasuring 0.090 hectare, 0.040 hectare, 0.390 hectare and 0.480 hectare respectively, the total area being 0.56 hectare out of 1 hectare of land situated in village Malhan, Tehsil Gunnor, District Panna. The cost of the land acquired was 5,20,000/- per hectare but total of Rs.2,91,200/- with 100% solatium of 2,91,200/-. Interest on the award was granted @12% per annum from 30.08.2012 till 14.05.2015 which comes to Rs.1,97,880/- and thereafter @15% from taking the possession till one year which was Rs.2,91,200/- + Rs.2,91,200/- + Rs.1,97,880/- and the total sum was Rs.7,80,280/- the payment made was Rs.3,41,874/- as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Panna in MJC 22/2019, the present appeal has been filed.

The challenge to the said award has been on two grounds. Firstly, the solatium had to be given @30% as per the Old Acquisition Act under which the Section 4 notification was issued in the year 2012. Therefore, it is a contention of the appellants that solatium being calculated @100% under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "The Act, 2013"), was erroneous and incorrect. The second ground of challenge is that the Reference Court has considered the lands acquired as irrigated whereas, the said lands were non-irrigated.

Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to I.A. No.13029/2022, which is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for production of additional evidence. The attention of this Court has been drawn to document No.1 which is the copy of Exhibit D-18 proved by the DW-1 before the Court of Reference where the lands acquired from the respondent as shown as non-irrigated land. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, was missed by the Reference Courts and therefore, it erred in holding the acquired lands as irrigated lands without giving due cognizance to the revenue record.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order passed by the learned Reference Court does not require any interference as the same is correct on law and on facts.

As regards, the solatium being granted @100%, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even though the Section 4 notification was under the old Act, the award when it was passed in 2015, the old Act had ceased to exist and therefore, the solatium was rightly passed under the relevant provisions of the Act, 2013. As regards, the question of the lands being non-irrigated, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the record of the learned Court below where the Khasra entry pertaining to the year 2014-2015, which is a document of the appellants itself, shows that the lands in question were all irrigated lands.

Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the document of the appellants itself goes to reveal that the lands acquired by the appellants from the respondent are all irrigated lands. However, in opposition to this argument, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the sale deed that was executed between the respondent and the State for the remaining part of the lands in which the lands on Khasra No.1423/1 is shown as non-irrigated land. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said fact having been recorded in the sale deed upon information given by the respondent, as regards the land on Khasra No. 1423/1 is binding on the respondent. In order to counter the said argument, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to paragraph 13 of the impugned order in which the learned Court below has recorded that the testimony of the respondent before it reveals that the part of Khasra No. 1423/1 which was beyond the demarcation boundary of the said lands, was the part which was non-irrigated while the part of lands that was acquired by the appellants was irrigated land.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the learned Court below. As regards the first contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the solatium has been calculated on the wrong basis @100% instead of 30%, deserves to be rejected as though the Acquisition proceeding was started under the old Act and the Section 4 notification was published in the year, 2012, but by the time being award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in 2015, the Old Act has ceased to exist and the Act of 2013 was in force and therefore solatium had to be awarded as per Section 24 of the Act of 2013 which was 100% of the acquired value of the land. Besides, the Act of 2013 being a beneficial legislation, the same ought to be interpreted in the manner so that the benefit of the same goes to the person from whom the land was acquired by the State.

As regards the second objection put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the lands acquired from the respondent were non- irrigated and therefore considering the same as irrigated land was incorrect, this Court has considered the said argument. Undoubtedly Ex. D-18, which is a document prepared by the appellants reflects that the said lands were not non-irrigated. However, the Khasra entry pertaining to the year 2014-2015 clearly reflects that the acquired lands are all irrigated lands. The Khasra entries are made by the revenue authorities of the State after inspecting the lands and satisfying themselves about the status and nature of the land, therefore, once the Khasra entries itself reveal that the said lands are irrigated, there is no necessity to take a different view.

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the sale deed entered into between the respondent and the appellants for the remaining part of the lands reflects that Khasra No.1423/1 is shown as non-irrigated land is concerned, the testimony of the respondent before the reference Court has rightly been considered by the learned Court below wherein the respondent has stated that the part of Khasra No.1423/1, which lay after the demarcation boundary, was the part that was non-irrigated. Thus, the learned Court below cannot be faulted for having arrived at the conclusion that the lands of the respondent which were acquired are all irrigated lands. As regards the objection which has been taken with regard to the interest that has been awarded by the reference Court, the same has been considered and covered by this Court in case of Sushila Bai and others vs. State of M. P. & others [2018 (2) MPLJ 310] with specific reference to paragraph No.18 of the said judgment.

Under the circumstances, in view of what has been argued, considered and held by this Court herein above, the appeal sans merits is dismissed.

(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE HK

HIMANSHU KOSHTA 2022.12.12 13:46:40 +05'30'