Vishwanath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9340 MP

                                   1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                                    BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                           ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2022

                     WRIT PETITION No. 7071 of 2019

        Between:-
        VISHWANATH S/O SHRI CHHOTELAL KURMI,
        AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE GORAKHURD,
        TEHSIL BANDA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (NONE FOR THE PETITIONER )

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
        IRRIGATION VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      COLLECTOR   AND   PRESIDING DEPUTY
        SECRETARY STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH,
        DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DISTT. SAGAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:
                                    ORDER

The petitioner in the instant writ petition is seeking directions to the

respondents to grant proper compensation as per Schedule II and III of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act of 2013").

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of certain lands as has

been mentioned in the petition. A notification was issued for acquisition of the

land for Sanjali Madhyam Pariyojana Jalashay in District Sagar. The preliminary notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 was issued on 07.04.2017, thereafter, declaration under Section 19 of the Act of 2013 was made and final

award has been passed on 12.06.2018. It is mentioned in the petition that petitioner is entitled for various benefits as per Schedule II and III of the Act of 2013, which has not been granted to him. He places reliance on a decision of this

Court in the matter of Smt. Pooja Modi Vs. Housing and Environment Department (W.P. No.6318/2015 passed on 29.03.2016).

3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that

the compensation for the land situated in village Gora Khurd was determined at the rate of Rs.7,25,000/- for irrigated land and Rs.3,95,000/- for un-irrigated land. The other benefits provided in the Schedules were granted while passing the award dated 12.06.2018 and on different other dates. The State did not receive any objection before passing of the final award. The representation dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P/3) was filed belatedly and there was no proper

receiving in the office of the Collector concerned. It is further submitted that the appropriate remedy in the instant case available to the petitioner is to file a reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and under such circumstances, the

petition is not maintainable. The learned Government Advocate places reliance on a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Shri Balaso Namadev Patil and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others as reported in 2017 SCC Online Bom 2487 and Single Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Smt. Urmila Pandey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others as reported 2016 SCC Online MP 11573.

4. However, the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the

concerned Collector to point out that notwithstanding the fact that the award has

not been challenged under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner is still entitled for certain benefits under the various schemes.

5. Bare reading of Section 64 of the Act of 2013, this Court is of the

opinion that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his

objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the

persons interested.

6. The Second Schedule provides for element of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements for all the affected families (both land owners and the families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on land requirement) in addition to those provided in the First Schedule. The Third Schedule provides for provision of infrastructural amenities. In short Second and Third Schedules

are related to the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement. Section 64 of the Act of 2013, includes objection with respect to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of

Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. It is, therefore, seen that even for enforcement of the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement, the Act of 2013 provides for remedy of reference under Section 64. The State Government vide Gazette notification dated 08.09.2016 notified all District Judges (ex-officio) as Presiding Officer for exercising the jurisdiction, powers and authority within their territorial jurisdiction to decide the reference made to them under Section

64 of the Act of 2013. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot claim any

relief under the provisions of the Act of 2013 outside the ambit of Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned Collector while filing appropriate application in accordance with law. If such an

application is filed, the concerned Collector is directed to deal with the same as per the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 2013.

7. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of

Smt.Pooja Modi (supra) is concerned, the issue was not whether any person can claim for any benefit beyond the award without resorting to the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and, therefore, the same would not be

applicable in the present case.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.07.12 16:41:28 +05'30'