The State Of M.P. vs Mulloo Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 16794 MP

                              - : 1 :-
                                                       F.A. No. 258/2002



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT I N D O R E
                            BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA



                 FIRST APPEAL No. 258 of 2002

BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR,
LAND ACQUISITION, KHARGONE.
                                                   .....APPELLANT
(SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT/STATE.)

AND
MULLOO      SINGH     (DECEASED)   THROUGH      LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES -
(A) BHURIYA BAI WIDOW OF MULLOO SINGH, R/O.
PAHADSINGPURA, KHARGONE.
(B) PARASRAM S/O. MULLOO SINGH, R/O. PAHADSINGPURA,
KHARGONE.
(C) SURESH S/O. MULLOO SINGH, R/O. PAHADSINGPURA,
KHARGONE.
(D) SANTOSH S/O. MULLOO SINGH, R/O. PAHADSINGPURA,
KHARGONE.
(E) JASHODA BAI D/O. MULLOO SINGH, R/O. PAHADSINGPURA,
KHARGONE.
                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.)



Reserved on                               :      08.12.2022.

Pronounced on                             :      19.12.2022

This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on

for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following :
                                  - : 2 :-
                                                          F.A. No. 258/2002




                             JUDGMENT

The appellant/State has filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.3.2002 passed by First Additional District Judge, Khargone (Reference Court) whereby the amount of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act has been enhanced in favour of the legal heirs of the landowner - deceased Mulloo Singh.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

Mulloo Singh (since dead, represented through legal heirs) was the owner of agricultural land bearing 52 areas 4.755 Hect. situated in Village Jamshedpura, Patwari Halka No.15, which was acquired for construction of Adampura Reservoir after issuance of the Notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award for grant of the compensation of Rs.1,30,653/- was passed in Case No. 39/A-82/96-97 and the said amount has been received by the land owner under protest. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation, the respondent submitted an application u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector and the same was referred to the District Court by way of reference for adjudication.

Before the Reference Court, the respondent submitted that he has received the amount of compensation under protest with an intention to challenge the said award. His land admeasuring 3.756 Hect. has wrongly been treated as an unirrigated land to award less compensation to him. The sale-deeds of the relevant period have not been considered and according to which, even the un-irrigated land sold @ Rs.18,000/- Per Acre. He has also placed reliance on the sale- deeds by which the land admeasuring 8.38 Acres was sold at Rs.1,70,000/-. Accordingly, he claimed the compensation of

- : 3 :-

F.A. No. 258/2002

Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and solatium by submitting the claim before the Reference Court.

The Land Acquisition Officer filed the reply objecting to the enhancement on the ground that the compensation was assessed on the basis of the market value of land sold prior to the date of issuance of Notification dated 12.12.1997, therefore, there is no scope for further enhancement. It is further submitted that the sale-deeds relied on by the land owner are of the year 1998 i.e. after the passing of the award, hence the same cannot be relied on.

In support of his claim, the respondent/land owner examined himself, Shobharam and Nanasingh and got exhibited two sale-deeds dated 20.2.1998 and 25.4.1998 as Exh. P/1 and P/2. In defence, the Land Acquisition Officer - B.S. Morya, Joint Collector, Khargone examined himself and got exhibited six documents as Exh. D/1 to D/6.

After appreciating the evidence that came on record the learned Reference Court has held that the land admeasuring 3.756 Hect. is irrigated land and the 1,00 hect. remaining land is unirrigated ('Padat') and accordingly assessed the market value of irrigated land at Rs.67,500/- and Rs.22,500/- for un-irrigated ('Padat') land thus awarded the total compensation of Rs.2,75,125/-. The Reference Court has also awarded Rs.82,537/- towards solatium u/s. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act @ 30% and further awarded 12% interest on the enhanced amount of compensation on Rs.1,77,343/- from 30.1.1998 till the date of its actual payment. Hence, the present appeal before this Court by the appellant/State.

While admitting this appeal on 21.8.2002 this Court has refused to grant the stay and directed the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation within two months and permitted the respondent to

- : 4 :-

F.A. No. 258/2002

withdraw the said amount on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Reference Court. The appellant must have deposited the amount of compensation, hence, there would be no liability of payment of interest after the date of deposit on the enhanced amount.

Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellant/State submits that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly assessed the compensation taking into consideration the sale-deeds executed prior to the date of notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. After the acquisition of the land for the construction of the reservoir, the market value of the land of the surrounding area has increased, therefore, the sale-deeds executed after 1998 have wrongly been taken into consideration for enhancement of the compensation by the Reference Court. Learned Reference Court has wrongly enhanced the amount of compensation by ignoring Exh. D/1 to D/6. Hence the impugned order of enhancement of compensation is liable to be set aside.

Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

The respondent - land owner has claimed that his entire land admeasuring 4.756 Hect. was an irrigated land and the source of irrigation was 'Nala' which is mentioned in "Khasra Paanchsala" (Exh. D/1). The Land Acquisition Officer wrongly relied on Exh. D/4 which was prepared by the Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department. Exh. D/4 is not a document prepared by the Tehsildar or a Revenue Officer. Therefore, any entries made therein cannot be accepted. The entries made in "Khasra Paanchsala" is liable to be accepted in which the land admeasuring 3.6 Hect. is shown as an irrigated land through 'Nala' and One Hect. land as an unirrigated ('Padat') land. To that extent, the order passed by the learned

- : 5 :-

F.A. No. 258/2002

Reference Court is not liable to be interfered with.

So far as consideration of the sale-deeds of the relevant period is concerned, it is correct that upon the acquisition of the land for certain projects, the market value of the land of the nearby area goes up, but the stamp duty is liable to be paid on the basis of the guidelines fixed by the Collector. No such guidelines have been exhibited by the Land Acquisition Officer to establish that the market value of the land of the nearby area of the project has been increased after issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant has only filed the list of sale- deeds obtained from the Office of Dy. Registrar, Registration, Khargone instead of filing the copy of the sale-deeds. The market value of the land depends on various factors like location of land, quality of soil, source of irrigation, distance from the city or any big project. In the opinion of this Court, the Reference Court has rightly categorised the land as an irrigated land and un-irrigated land and calculated the amount of compensation accordingly. The Land Acquisition Officer has also taken into consideration the quality of the soil of the acquired land . Therefore, Rs.67,500/- per Hect. cannot be said to be on the higher side in the year 1997-1998. Hence. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Reference Court.

During pendency of this appeal, it has come on record that Mulloo Singh has expired, and his wife and sons have been taken on record. On the last date of the hearing learned counsel of the respondent informed that the Smt. Bhuriya Bai and one deceased Mulloo Singh's son viz. Suresh has also expired but no details of his legal heirs' were given. Therefore, if the amount of compensation has

- : 6 :-

F.A. No. 258/2002

not been disbursed to the late Mulloo Singh, then the learned Executing Court or LAO is directed to disburse the amount of the compensation to the legal heirs of respondent Mulloo Singh.

With the aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed.

[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE.

Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2022.12.19 16:24:10 +05'30'