The Land Acquisition Officer Avam ... vs Shrish Tripathi
2023 Latest Caselaw 6032 MP

                                1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                       BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 13th OF APRIL, 2023
                   FIRST APPEAL No. 445 of 2017

BETWEEN:-

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AVAM
PADEN COLLECTOR THR. NARMADA
GHATI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                         .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SHRI
NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND

SHRISH TRIPATHI S/O SHRI KRISHNANAD
TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
AMARPATAN TAH AMARPATAN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MAHESH PRASAD RAJAK - ADVOCATE)

"Reserved on : 06.04.2023"
"Pronounced on : 13.04.2023".
      This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

                             JUDGMENT

1. This First Appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code has been filed against the award dated 17-9-2016 passed by 2nd Additional

District Judge, Satna Link Court, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna in M.J.C. No. 21/2016.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the lands of the respondent were acquired for construction of Sonoura Sub-Branch Canal No. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer, awarded the compensation. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent made an application for reference and accordingly, reference was made to the District Court under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act.

3. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount, thereby relying on the Collector's Guidelines for payment of Stamp Duty.

4. Challenging the impugned award, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant, that the Reference Court should not have taken the Collector's guidelines into consideration.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 2010 SC 170 has held that the Collector guideline is a relevant piece of evidence for ascertaining the market value. However, it has been held that the said guideline can be a relevant evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with prescribed assessment procedure.

7. The counsel for the appellant could not challenge the Collector guideline relied upon by the Court and it is not the case of the appellant that the Collector had issued the guideline for collection of stamp duty

without following the due procedure of law.

8. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surya Kumar (supra), has held as under:-

"So far as first contention of the appellant that the Reference Court ought not to have affixed the market value as per the order of Collector dated 31-3-2005 is concerned, we considered the contention of appellant and found that the aforesaid guidelines in respect of minimum market value was issued by the Collector under the provisions of M.P. Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short). From the perusal of aforesaid rules it is apparent that under Rule 4 there is provision for constitution of District Valuation Committee who shall prepare the market value guidelines as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 6. The aforesaid market value is to be affixed as per the provisions envisaged under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and these rules have been framed under Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. When the State Government on one hand is affixing minimum market value and they charge stamp duty on a document as per the guidelines issued by the Collector, then the State Government cannot deprive its liability for the payment of compensation if the land owner based his claim on the basis of aforesaid guidelines. The aforesaid guidelines were framed as per the Rules of 2000 and if the Reference Court relying on the guidelines assessed the compensation, no fault is found. The Collector being an Authorised Officer of the State has fixed the aforesaid minimum market value and the State is estopped from assailing the impugned award on the ground that the valuation fixed by the Collector as per Annexure P-3 was not correct."

9. Thus, it is clear that the Court can consider the Collector guideline prevailing at the relevant time of issuance of final notification, as a

guiding factor for ascertaining the market value of the land which was acquired.

10. The counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity in the reasoning assigned by the reference Court.

11. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference in the matter.

12. As a consequence thereof, the award dated 17-9-2016 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Satna Link Court, Amarpatan, Distt. Satna in M.J.C. No. 21/2016 is affirmed.

13. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

14. No order as to cost.

HEMANT SARAF                                       (G.S. AHLUWALIA)
2023.04.18 16:17:53                                      JUDGE
+05'30'
 HS