Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Parwat Singh on 10 May, 2022
Author: Virender Singh
1
RP-297-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW PETITION No.297 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Collector Land Acquisition
Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal
(Madhya Pradesh)
2. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department
Bhopal, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
...Petitioners
(By Shri H.S. Ruprah, Additional Advocate General With
Ms. Janhavi Pandit, Dy. Advocate General)
AND
1. Parwat Singh S/o Chan Singh
Occupation: Nil Village Koluwa Khuhrd,
Dist.Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
2. Smt. Komal Bai W/o Pawant Singh
Occupation: Nil R/O Village Koluwa Khurd,
District- Bhopal, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
3. Keval Singh S/o Parwat Singh
Occupation: Nil R/O Village Koluwa Khurd,
District-Bhopal, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
2
RP-297-2022
4. Mehtab Singh S/o Parwat Singh
Occupation: Nill R/O Village Koluwa Khurd,
District- Bhopal, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
5. Ram Prasad S/o Late Parwat Singh
Occupation: Nill R/o Village Ayodhy, Bypass,
Abhnav Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
6. Janak Singh S/o Late Parwat Singh
Occupation: Nill R/O 29-A, Siddharth Lake City,
Anand Nagar, Bhopal, M.P. (Madhya Pradesh)
...Respondents
(By Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
By way of present petition, the petitioners/State and its
functionaries seek review of judgment dated 21.02.2022 passed
in First Appeal No.44/2007.
2. Vide said judgment, this Court had dismissed the appeal
of the State and its functionaries which was filed against the
order/award dated 01.05.2006 passed by the Reference Court,
enhancing compensation for the land acquired by the State and
granting interest from the date of dispossession of the
respondents i.e. 30.06.1950.
RP-297-2022
3. Neither the amount of compensation nor the right to get
interest from the date of dispossession has been disputed. The
dispute is raised only with regard to the date of dispossession.
4. The review has been sought on the ground that the
respondents themselves asked for compensation from 10 years
back from the date of submission of their application i.e. 1991
and, therefore, they were entitled for the interest from that year
only. To bolster his contention, the ld. Additional Advocate
General referred to two documents i.e. Annexures RP-2 and RP-
3. Annexure RP-2 is an application purportedly submitted by
respondent No.3 Keval Singh to the Land Acquisition Officer,
Bhopal on 24.01.2001 inter alia stating that the land submerged
since last 10 years, therefore, the compensation and interest be
granted for those 10 years. Annexure RP-3 is a communication
dated 16.05.2001 sent by Executive Engineer, Water Resources
Division, Bhopal to Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal inter alia
stating that the water was released in the canals from Ghoda
Pachad Dam in the year 1990-91 to Ajnaal Reservoir which
shows that the land of the claimants submerged or had come in
the possession of the department since 1990-91.
5. The ld. Additional Advocate General further contended
that both these documents were placed before the Land
Acquisition Officer, were available in his case file and get
RP-297-2022
mention in the order of Land Acquisition Officer, but escaped
the attention of the Court, which vitiated the order of the
Reference Court as well as judgment of this Court.
6. It is also argued that the admission is the best form of the
evidence and since RP-2 is the document of respondents
containing their admission, they are bound by it and are now
estopped to say or claim anything contrary to it.
7. But, admittedly, both these documents, i.e. Annexures
RP-2 and RP-3 referred to by ld. Additional Advocate General,
were never produced or proved before the Reference Court.
Their veracity could never be tested. Before this Court also,
both these documents never referred to or pressed into service.
They even didn't find mention in the memo of appeal. The
judgment or the order cannot be reviewed by this Court on the
basis of such alien documents which are now being produced
even after dismissal of the First Appeal. When the documents,
which are now being relied upon, were not before the Court and
it has not been shown that the appellant was deprived to
obtain/produce/prove or even to refer them, even after due
diligence, it cannot be said that there is any fault in the
judgment of this Court.
8. Besides, the documents produced or proved before the
Reference Court reflected that respondents were dispossessed
RP-297-2022
from their land in the year 1950 and most importantly, this fact
has been admitted by the then Additional Advocate General.
Now the petitioner cannot turn around by merely change of
baton.
9. Review of an order can be only when there is an error
apparent on the face of the record or on the other principles
culled out in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. Evidently, there is no error apparent on the face of the
record, therefore, no interference in the impugned judgment is
warranted.
10. Ex consequenti, the review petition, being devoid of
substance, is dismissed.
(Virender Singh)
JUDGE
vinod
Digitally signed by VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2022.05.14 11:29:18
+05'30'
