Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhir Kumar Verma vs Land Acquisition Officer on 21 June, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 21st OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 1204 of 2021
Between:-
1. SUDHIR KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE HEERALAL
VERMA , AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED WING COMMANDER M-254 JALVAYU
VIHAR SECTOR 25 GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR
NOIDA U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)
2. VISHWADEEP VERMA S/O LATE DEVENDRA
KUMAR VERMA , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS SUNDER HEERA
COMLEX, SUARANTOLA, PADDRA REWA, TEH.
HUZUR, DISTT. REWA , AT PRESENT RESI. 61,
GOOD SHEPHARD, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHRUTI VERMA D/O SUDHIR KUMAR VERMA ,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE M-254, JALVAYU VIHAR, SECTOR -
25, GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR, NOIDA, U.P.
(UTTAR PRADESH)
4. SMRITI VERMA D/O SUDHIR KUMAR VERMA
S/O LATE HEERALAL VERMA , AGED ABOUT 32
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION M-254,
JALVAYU VIHAR, SECTOR -25, GAUTAM BUDDH
NAGAR, NOIDA, U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)
5. RUCHIRA VERMA D/O LATE JAGDISH VERMA ,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
MENTION C-29, SCETOR 12, NOIDA, U.P. (UTTAR
PRADESH)
6. RICHA VERMA D/O LATE JAGDISH VERMA ,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE C-29, SCETOR 12, NOIDA, U.P. (UTTAR
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
7. SANDEEP VERMA S/O LATE JAGDISH VERMA ,
SAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE C-29, SCETOR 12, NOIDA, U.P. (UTTAR
Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN
Date: 2022.06.23 12:31:39 IST PRADESH)
2
8. DR. PRAVEEN KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE
HEERALAL VERMA , AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: DOCTOR B-308, NAVEEN
APARTMENT, SECTOR- 5, PLOT NO. 13,
DWARKA NEW DELHI (DELHI)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY MISS SANJANA SAHANI, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THR. REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
DIST. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. M.P. HOUSING BOARD THROUGH EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER BUS STAND NEAR JAI STHANBH,
DISTT. REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR REPONDENT
NO.3 & SHRI AMIT PANDEY, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question specific part of order impugned
dated 01/12/2020 (Annexure P/7) by which the executing Court has declined to
grant interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as Act of 1894 for the sake of brevity).
The facts reveal that originally an award was passed under Section 11 of
Act of 1894 on 31/05/2000. Thereafter pursuant to reference made under
Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the same was further enhanced vide award dated
13/05/2005 delivered by VIth Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Rewa. However, on the question of quantum, the said award was again assailed
before the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.776/2005 whereby
Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN
Date: 2022.06.23 12:31:39 IST
the appeal was partly allowed on 12/04/2007. Since the case in hand only
pertains to the award of interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894, therefore,
paragraph 31 of the judgment of aforesaid First Appeal No.776/2005 is being
reproduced hereunder:
"In our considered opinion obtaining the factual matrix in this view, the benefit
of Section 28 is extendable to the appellants and accordingly we conclude and hold
that they are entitled to the same. The benefit under Section 34 has also not been
extended to them. There is no reason to refuse the benefit under Section 34 of the
Act. The said benefit is also extended to the appellants."
Thereafter, judgement dated 12/04/2007 passed in First Appeal in
776/2005 by the Division Bench was further challenged by the M.P. Housing
Board (Beneficiaries) as well as the (petitioners land owner). The Supreme
Court dismissed the petition preferred at the instance of MP Housing Board
vide order contained in Annexure P/4 herein and disposed of the Civil Appeal
No.258/2016 by the petitioners herein while disposing of the appeal of
petitioners/plaintiffs Apex Court only modified the findings as regards the rate
of land which was assessed @ 20/- sq.ft. by the High Court, the same was
modified by holding @ 40/- sq.ft. would be reasonable.
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 & 6, of Civil Appeal No.258/2016 are reproduced
hereunder:
"3. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the amount of compensation
awarded to the respondents is Rs.20/- per square feet, which has been further
reduced by 1/3rd.
4. The afore-stated amount appears to be on much lesser side as circle rate is
much higher than the amount which has been awarded.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
5. Upon perusal of the record, we are of the view that Rs.40/- per square
Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN
feet would be reasonable amount which should be awarded, without any deduction
Date: 2022.06.23 12:31:39 IST
therefrom.
6. Needless to say that in addition to the afore-stated amount, all statutory
benefits would also be paid to the land owners. The amount shall be paid preferably
within four months from today."
Thus, pursuant to above detailed award, the petitioners/plaintiffs applied
before the Executing Court for execution of award in accordance with
provisions of order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the
Executing Court has declined to grant interest in accordance with Section 28 of
the Act of 1894, ergo, challenging the part of the order which pertains to denial
of interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894, the petitioners/plaintiffs has
filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not within the
scope of Executing Court to decide the question with regard to grant of interest
under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 inasmuch as the Executing Court cannot be
go behind the award. Moreover, the issue with regard to grant of interest under
Section 28 of the Act of 1894 was conclusively decided by the Division Bench
of this Court and the said finding has attained finality and therefore, the order
impugned which pertains to non grant of interest under Section 28 of the Act of
1894 is perverse and deserves to the set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that powers
under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 can only be exercised by the Collector
when there is a direction by the competent Court, and in the present case, there
was no direction to the Collector to assess the amount of interest in accordance
with Section 28 of the Act of 1894, thus, the Executing Court rightly declined
the prayer with regard to grant of interest under Section 28 of the 1894, thus
Signature Not Verified
SAN
supports the order impugned.
Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN
Date: 2022.06.23 12:31:39 IST
Learned counsel for the State also supports the submission made on
behalf of respondent No.3.
Heard rival submissions made on behalf of the parties.
There is no iota of confusion as regards the specific direction by the
Division Bench to award interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894, The
Division Bench in unequivocal terms issued a specific direction to award
interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 and the land owners/petitioners
were held entitled for the same. Thus, if the impugned order is taken into
consideration cogitatively, the same would reveal that the executing Court has
not even referred to paragraph 31 of the judgment of Division Bench of this
Court in FA No.776/2015. The Executing Court, only referred to the judgment
of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.258/2016 which was decided vide order
dated 05/01/2016. It escaped the attention of the Executing Court that the Civil
Appeal before the Apex Court was confined to rate of land which was assessed
by the Division Bench @ 20/- sq.ft. and in turn, the same was modified by the
Apex Court to be @ 40/- sq.ft. however, remaining part the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court was neither under challenge nor interfered with by
the Apex Court.
Thus, in considered view of this Court, the judgment of Division Bench
of this Court in First Appeal No.776/2015 is holding the field and being
conclusive has binding effect. Therefore, in this view of the matter the findings
in the impugned order dated 01/12/2020 (Annexure P/7) so far as they relate to
denial of of interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 are set aside and the
Executing Court is directed to decide the question pertaining to grant of interest
Signature Not Verified
to the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 afresh, within a period of
SAN
sixty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order in terms
Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN
Date: 2022.06.23 12:31:39 IST
of para 31 of the judgement dated 12/04/2007 in FA No.776/2005 by Division
Bench of this Court.
With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed to the extend indicated
hereinabove.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MANINDER S BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASTHA SEN
Date: 2022.06.23 12:31:39 IST
