Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indira Sagar Project (Canal) vs Sehdev on 17 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
IN THE HIGH COURTOF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
FIRST APPEAL No. 703 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
PIYUSH S/O DAMODAR PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
1.
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUSHIL S/O LAXMINARAUYAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS DAHI TEH. KUCHHI, DIST. DHAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 660 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3. NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
- : 2 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
AND
GOKUL S/O JHAPDUSA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 208, M.G. ROAD, BARWANI , TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 661 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL0 LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P.THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
BHAGWAN S/O NAINA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SOHANI, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/S.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 662 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR CANAL PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION
1.
OFFICER BADWAANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
- : 3 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
AND
DEVRAM S/O LAXMANRAO, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 5 RANJEET MARG, BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 663 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THROUGH LR NO. 1 NAJNEEN BI
1. W/O ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA, BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS MOBIN MINOR
THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM, AGED
2.
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS ANAS MINOR
3. THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM SIRVI
MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS MOINUDDIN
4. MINOR THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM
MINOR SIRVI MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 665 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
- : 4 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP. TRH. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3. NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11. DIST. BARWANI. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
VIKAS S/O KAILASH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SOHANI, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/S.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 666 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATEOF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
NAAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE MIRCHI MOHALLA, BADWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MOBIN MINOR THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI W/O
2.
ASLAM MIRCHI MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ANAS MINOR THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI W/O
3.
ASLAM MIRCHI MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MOINUDDIN MINOR THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI
4.
W/O ASLAM MIRCHI MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THR LRS NAAJNEEN BI W/O
ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
- : 5 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
MIRCHI MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THR LRS MOBIN MINOR THR
6. GUARDIAN MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM MIRCHI
MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THR LRS ANAS MINOR THR
7. GUARDIAN MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM MIRCHI
MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SABEERA BI W/O AKEEL (DEAD) THR LRS MOINUDDIN MINOR
8. THR GUARDIAN MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM MIRCHI
MOHALLA, BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 667 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT. DIV. NO. 11
3. NARMADA DEVELOPMENT. DIV. NO. 11. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
NAAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE MIRCHI MOHALLA, BADWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MOBIN S/O ASLAM MINR THR. NATURAL GUARDIAN JAAJNEEN
2. BI W/O ASLAM OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BARWANI TEH. AND
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ANAS S/O ASLAM MINR THR. NATURAL GUARDIAN JAAJNEEN BI
3. W/O ASLAM OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BARWANI TEH. AND
DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MOINUDDIN S/O ASLAM MINOR THR. NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER NAAJNEEN BI W/O ASLAM OCCUPATION:
4.
AGRICULTURE BARWANI TEH. AND DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
- : 6 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 668 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT. DIV. NO. 11
3. NARMADA DEVELOPMENT. DIV. NO. 11. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
RAJENDRA S/O GOVIND, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1.
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHANTA BAI W/O GOVIND, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA, BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SOHANI, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/S.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 669 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT. DIV. NO. 11
3. NARMADA DEVELOPMENT. DIV. NO. 11. BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
- : 7 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
HARISH S/O KAILASH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SOHANI, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/S.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 670 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
NARAYAN S/O AMRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1.
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
BABULAL S/O AMRA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2.
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
TEJUBAI W/O AMRA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
3.
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 671 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
3.
NO. 11 BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
- : 8 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
AND
DUDA S/O NAINA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SOHANI, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/S.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 672 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
AAYUSH S/O VASUDEV MUKATI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 673 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SANTOSH S/O BADRI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
- : 9 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 675 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
BAALI BAI W/O BADRI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 676 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
RAHUL S/O BHAGWAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1. AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA, PETLAWAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAVI S/O BHAGWAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
- : 10 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
MAMTA D/O BHAGWAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
3.
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
LAXMI W/O BHAGWAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
4.
AGRICULTURE SIRVI MOHALLA BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 678 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR BARWANI
2.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO.11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
POONAM CHAND S/O VEDIYA (DEAD) THROUGH L.R. NO. 1
BASANT S/O POONAM CHAND, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
1.
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE ANAND NAGAR, BADWANI TEHSIL
AND DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
POONAM CHAND S/O VEDIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS GIRDHARI
2. S/O POONAM CHAND, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE ANAND NAGAR, BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
POONAM CHAND S/O VEDIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SAVITRI BAI
3. W/O POONAM CHAND, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, ANAND NAGAR,
BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 679 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
1. INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
- : 11 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV.NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
RUKMANI W/O RAJARAM, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 2/3 RANJEET MARG, RANIPURA WARD NO. 21
BARWANI TEH. AND DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 680 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
RAJU S/O PANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SEGAON, WARD NO. 10 BARWANI TEH. AND
DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 681 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 12 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
2. STATE OF MP THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
YASH S/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UMEMPLOYED JAWAHAR MARG, BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VINAY KUMAR ZELAWAT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
SHRI AASHAY DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 682 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
3.
NO. 11 BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
GOPILAL S/O UDIYA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE NAVALPURA, NEAR CHURCH BADWANI TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 683 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 13 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
JAYA W/O AJAY PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE 7, BRAJ VIHAR COLONY, NAVALPURA BARWANI TEH.
AND DISTRCT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 686 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P THR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
GOVIND S/O POMDIYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE BHILAT MARG, NAVALPURA BARWANI TEH. AND
DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 690 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11.
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 14 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SIRVATI BAI W/O PREM SINGH PATEL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE SUSTI KHEDA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHARAT ASHOK CHITALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 691 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
1.
THROUGH P.S.-BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF MP THR. COLLECOTR. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SEHDEV S/O MANGILAL OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
KUNDIYA , POST PIPLAAJ BADWANI TEHSIL BADWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 692 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
- : 15 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
AND
HUKUM CHAND S/O BHURELA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 46 GALI NO. 2 SUBASH MARG
1.
RANIPURA WARD NO. 18 BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
JAGDISH S/O BHURELAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 46 GALI NO. 2 SUBASH MARG RANIPURA WARD
2.
NO. 18 BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
DHANU BAI D/O BHURELAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 46 GALI NO. 2 SUBASH MARG
3.
RANIPURA WARD NO. 18 BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
LATA D/O BHURELAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE 46 GALI NO. 2 SUBASH MARG RANIPURA WARD
4.
NO. 18 BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PRABHA BAI D/O BHURELAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 46 GALI NO. 2 SUBASH MARG
5.
RANIPURA WARD NO. 18 BADWANI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 693 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
THROUGH P.S.-BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
THROUGH COLLECTOR COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
DUDA S/O MULA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SEGAON, WARD NO. 10 BARWANI TEH. BARWANI
- : 16 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 695 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
THROUGH COLLECTOR COLLECTOR BARWANI. (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NAMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO.11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
HARISHANKAR S/O PROMDIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. SITARAM
1. S/O HARISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NAVALPURA,
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
HARISHANKAR S/O POMDIYA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. SAGAR BAI
2. W/O LATE HARISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, NAVALPURA
BARWANI TEH. AND DIST. BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 696 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
- : 17 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
BABULAL S/O RUKHDUJI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE SEGAON,
NAGAR PALIKA WARD NO. 10 BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 697 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SHANKAR S/O DEEPAJI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SEGAON, NAGAR PALIKA WARD NO. 10 BARWANI
TEHSIL BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 698 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
- : 18 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
SAMEENA W/O ABUTURAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: TEACHING 198, SUBHASH MARG, WARD NO. 20
BARWANI TEHSIL (MADHYA PRADESH)
MUSTAFA S/O ABUTURAO SABEER, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 198, SUBHASH MARG, WARD NO. 20
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
RASHIDA D/O ABUTURAO SABEER, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: HOUSEMAKER 198, SUBHASH MARG, WARD NO. 20
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SURAJMAL GARG, LEARNED SENIOR
ADVOCATE WITH SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR SOHANI, ADVOCATE FOR
THE RESPONDENT/S.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 699 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA EVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
JITENDRA S/O PANA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE SEGAON, WARD NO. 10 BARWANI TEHSIL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 700 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
- : 19 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SUDAMA S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM KUNDIYA, POST PIPLAAJ BARWANI TEHSIL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 701 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO.11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SEHDEV S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1. AGRICULTURE GRAM KUNDIYA, POST PIPLAAJ BADWANI
TEHSIL (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUDAMA S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
2. AGRICULTURE GRAM KUNIDYA POST PIPLAAJ BARWANI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SATYANARAYAN S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM KUNIDUYA POST PIPLAAJ
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 702 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 20 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOLPMENT DIV. NO. 11
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
RIYAJUDDIN S/O LT. SIRAJJUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE DEVI SINGH MARG, MIRCHI
MOHALLA BADWANI TEHSIL (MADHYA PRADESH)
AKIMUDIN S/O LT. SIRAJJUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVICE DEVI SINGH MARG. MIRCHI
MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
NAJMUDDIN S/O LT. SIRAJJUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE DEVI SINGH MARG. MIRCHI
MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAIFUDDIN S/O SIRAJJUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE DEVI SINGH MARG. MIRCHI
MOHALLA BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRATYUSH MISHRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 704 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO. 11.
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
KAMLESH S/O YASHWANT, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE NORTH AVENUE COLONY, BARWANI TEHSIL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VINAY KUMAR ZELAWAT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
- : 21 :-
F.A. No.703/2020 & 36
Connected Appeals)
SHRI AASHAY DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.)
FIRST APPEAL No. 705 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDIRA SAGAR PROJECT (CANAL) LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. STATE OF M.P. THR. COLLECTOR BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DIV. NO.
3.
BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI VIVEK PATWA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.)
AND
SATYANARAYAN S/O MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM KUNDIYA, POST PIPLAAJ
BARWANI TEHSIL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.)
Reserved for judgment on : 14.03.2023.
Pronounced on : 17.04.2023.
These appeals having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, this Court pronounced the
following :
JUDGMENT
As the controversy involved in all the aforesaid appeals is
identical, therefore, all the appeals are being decided by this common
judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts narrated in F.A.
No.703/2020 are being taken into consideration. All the aforesaid
appeals arise out of the award passed under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
- : 22 :-
Connected Appeals)
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
2013" for short) in respect of the acquisition of agricultural lands of
various land owners for construction of the canal under "Indira Sagar
Nahar Project".
The facts of the case, in short, are as under :
1- The appellants issued Notification u/s. 11 of the Act on 3.9.2017
for the acquisition of land under the "Indira Sagar Nahar Project".
Thereafter, final Notification u/s. 19 was published on 17.11.2017.
Notices u/s. 21(4) of the Act was issued to the land owners by way of
publication in the newspapers. The land owners submitted their
objection in writing and after hearing the appellants and the land
owners, learned Sub Divisional Officer / Land Acquisition Officer
passed the award dated 31.8.2018 . The information of the above award
was given to the land owners on 10.9.2018. Thereafter, the land owners
received the amount of compensation under protest and sought
enhancement of compensation by submitting reference cases before the
District Court. In the case of the respondents, the Land Acquisition
Officer has awarded the compensation of Rs.58,46,737/- u/s. 37 of the
Act of 2013.
2- The respondent submitted the statement of claim with
documentary evidence to seek enhancement of the amount of
compensation on the ground that his acquired land has an area 0.310
Hect. is situated hardly 500 mtrs. away from the Bypass of the
Khandwa-Baroda Highway which connects the newly notified National
Highway. The front portion of his land has been acquired, therefore, he
is entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,15,00,000/- per Hect. It was further
submitted that the acquired land is situated in Vill. Segaon which is an
- : 23 :-
Connected Appeals)
urban area of District Barwani, hence the land is having potential value
for residential and commercial use. In the award, the guidelines of the
years 2017 and 2018 framed for residential, as well as commercial
properties, have not been followed properly, hence the land owner is
entitled to enhancement of the amount of compensation. The appellants
submitted an objection in the reference case by submitting that a just
and proper amount of compensation has been awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer under the provisions of Sections 11, 19, 20, 21,
21(4) and 26 of the Act of 2013 and there is no scope for further
enhancement.
3- On the basis of pleadings, the learned Reference Court framed
six issues for adjudication. The land owner examined himself as P.W.1
and got exhibited 26 documents as Exh. P/1 to 26, out of which, Exh.
P/17 to P/25 are the sale deeds of the relevant years to be used as an
exemplar. The respondent, the land owner also examined Ravikant
Chouhan (P.W.2), the then Patwari; Neha Chouhan (P.W.3), Manager of
District Industries Center, Barwani; Narayansingh Nargave (P.W.4),
Assistant Grade-3 in the Office of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation
Officer, Indira Sagar Nahar Project, Barwani; Sunil John Minz (P.W.5),
Assistant Director in the Office of Town & Country Planning
Department, Khargone-Barwani; and Akash Chowkse (P.W.6), Dy.
Manager in the office of National Highway Authority, Indore. In
rebuttal, the appellants did not examine any witnesses and also not
filed any documentary evidence. After appreciating the evidence that
came on record, learned Reference Court has recorded the findings as
under :
(i) The land under acquisition is adjacent to Khandwa-Baroda State
- : 24 :-
Connected Appeals)
Highway which is near National Highway 347B and;
(ii) the land in question has been included in the Barwani
Development Project w.e.f. 17.12.2004;
(iii) the land acquired is reserved for the construction of 36 mtr. Wide
road in a residential area as per the master plan of the town;
(iv) Near the acquired land, other lands have been developed for
residential and industrial purposes like marriage-garden, market,
industrial areas, residential colonies, show-rooms, etc.
In view of the above, the learned court has treated the acquisition of
land as having high potential value for residential and commercial
purposes. The learned Reference Court has examined 9 sale deeds, out
of which, 3 sale deeds dated 27.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 (Exh. P/20, P/22
& P/24) have been taken as exemplars and on the basis of the market
value of the same, the value of the acquired land has been treated
Rs.13,00,00,000/. By relying on the judgment of the apex Court in the
case of Kantadevi V/s. State of Haryana: 2008 INSC 1056, learned
Reference Court has deducted 70% towards development charges from
the above value of the land. As the sale deeds taken as exemplars are
for a small area and the area of the respondent/land owner is large,
therefore, the learned Reference Court has further applied the
deduction of 45% and assessed the value of the land owner at
Rs.2,14,50,000/- per Hect. as just and proper compensation.
4- In order to cross-check the amount of compensation, the learned
Reference Court has applied another method of assessment of
compensation i.e. on the basis of guidelines of the year 2017-2018 and
according to which, 13,000 Sq.ft. has been taken into consideration for
awarding the compensation and according to which also, the value of
- : 25 :-
Connected Appeals)
the land of the respondent/land owner comes to Rs.2,14,50,000/-.
Accordingly, the compensation payable to the respondent has been
assessed at Rs.66,49,500/-. The benefit of 100% soletium has also been
given with interest @ 12% u/s. 11 from the date of final Notification
till the passing of the award. Apart from the above, compensation for
the pipeline trees has also been given in favour of the respondent.
Learned Reference court vide award has calculated the total
compensation payable to all land owners at the rate of Rs.1,1,30,889/-
per hectare. The details of compensation awarded to the land owners in
others' appeals are as under :
dLck cMokuh
Sr. First Parties District vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk losZ u- ,oa DysDVj ftyk U;k;ky;
No Appeal No. Court Case vf/kxzfgr jdck }kjk iznku dh }kjk c<kbZ xbZ
No. xbZ eqvkotk eqvkotk jkf'kA
jkf'kA
¼ewy vokMZ
jkf'k½
1 665/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/27/20 266/2, 267/3/1 0.0346 64,98,575 64,33,994
Vikash 19 gsDVs;j
2 669/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/30/20 267/3/2 0.068 12,58,405 12,64,484
Harish 19 gsDVs;j
3 661/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/29/20 69, 70, 71, 72 0.226 41,08,991 42,02,551
Bhagwan 19 gsDVs;j
4 668/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/37/20 27/7, 27/8 0.170 32,40,384 31,61,211
Rajendra 19 gsDVs;j
5 671/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/35/20 75 0.206 40,06,760 38,30,644
Dudha 19 gsDVs;j
6 673/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/28/20 88/1 0.117 21,05,085 21,75,657
Santosh 19 gsDVs;j
7 674/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/40/20 87/1, 87/4 0.117 23,01,477 21,75,657
Shankar 19 gsDVs;j
8 675/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/41/20 88/3, 8/2 0.250 45,58,979 46,48,840
Bali Bai 19 gsDVs;j
9 662/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/31/20 12/1 0.242 43,55,094 45,00,076
Devram 19 gsDVs;j
10 667/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/32/20 7/5, 7/6 0.140 25,29,903 26,03,350
Najneen 19 gsDVs;j
11 666/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/23/20 9/2, 9/3 9/4 , 0.358 65,24,991 66,57,138
Najneen 19 9/5 gsDVs;j
12 663/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/38/20 7/1 0.315 56,68,732 58,57,538
Sabeera 19 gsDVs;j
- : 26 :-
Connected Appeals)
13 670/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/33/20 16/2, 18/2 0.705 1,32,17,404 1,31,09,728
Narayan 19 gsDVs;j
14 664/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/34/20 77/1, 77/2, 0.270 48,55,898 50,20,747
Kailash 19 416/2 gsDVs;j
15 676/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/36/20 43/7 0.600 1,08,61,365 1,11,57,215
Rahul 19 gsDVs;j
16 672/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/39/20 222/5 0.420 79,23,165 78,10,051
Ayush 19 gsDVs;j
17 660/2020 LAO ISP V/s EXLA/24/20 48/6, 48/7 0.153 27,68,079 28,45,090
Gokul 19 gsDVs;j
uksV%%&mijksDr lHkh izdj.kksa esa Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh }kjk lHkh ds fy;s ,d leku xkbZM
ykbZu 85]00][email protected]& :i;s izfr gsDVj dh nj ls eqvkotk iznku fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj
ekuuh; ftyk U;k;ky; }kjk mlh {ks= ds fodz; i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij 1]71]60][email protected]&
:i;s izfr gsDVj dh eku ls eqvkotk r; fd;k gSA
lsxkao
Sr. First Parties District Court vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk losZ u- DysDVj ftyk
N Appeal Case No. ,oa vf/kxzfgr jdck }kjk iznku dh U;k;ky;
o No. xbZ eqvkotk }kjk c<kbZ
jkf'kA xbZ eqvkotk
¼ewy vokMZ jkf'kA
jkf'k½
1 701/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/113/201 60/7, 61/4, 0.395 72,69,606 1,09,54,083
V/s 9 61/5 gsDVj
Sahdev
2 669/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/109/201 60/5 0.360 64,14,919 99,83,468
V/s 9 gsDVj
Sahdev
3 700/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/101/201 60/2 0.195 35,20,256 54,07,644
V/s 9 gsDVj
Sudama
4 705/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/107/201 60/6 0.260 46,42,820 72,10,283
V/s 9 gsDVj
Satynaraya
n
5 702/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/120/201 23,25,26,27/ 0.185 33,39,214 51,30,394
V/s 9 1 iSdh gsDVj
Riyajuddin
6 692/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/115/201 24/4, 24/5, 0.299 56,57,340 79,79,102
V/s 9 24/6 iSdh gsDVj
Hukumcha
nd
7 698/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/102/201 4/2 0.475 1,11,24,763 1,07,02,117
V/s 9 gsDVj
Sameena
- : 27 :-
Connected Appeals)
8 704/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/137/201 61/10 0.040 8,33,929 34,56,948
V/s 9 gsDVj
Kamlesh
9 678/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/136/201 20/2 0.230 41,08,597 63,79,227
V/s 9 gsDVj
Punamcha
nd
10 690/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/122/201 60/1 0.405 73,03,859 1,12,31,402
V/s Sirvati 9 gsDVj
Bai
11 703/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/110/201 22/4/1, 22/7 0.310 58,46,737 1,12,31,402
V/s Piyush 9 gsDVj
12 696/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/119/201 5/3 0.175 40,27,783 39,39,922
V/s 9 gsDVj
Babulal
13 699/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/121/201 15/4/2 0.175 32,26,262 47,27,985
V/s 9 gsDVj
Jitendra
14 680/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/117/201 15/4/1 0.175 40,20,879 39,39,922
V/s Raju 9 gsDVj
15 695/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/112/201 12/3 iSd 0.130 29,79,211 29,29,658
V/s 9 gsDVj
Harishanka
r
16 683/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/111/201 24/1 0.057 10,10,096 37,00,471
V/s Jaya 9 gsDVj
17 681/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/108/201 94/5 0.028 4,90,350 18,23,612
V/s Yash 9 gsDVj
18 682/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/104/201 12/5, 13 0.245 56,24,297 55,18,393
V/s 9 gsDVj
Gopilal
19 679/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/100/201 12/1 0.150 35,15,490 33,77,970
V/s 9 gsDVj
Rukmani
Bai
20 697/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/118/201 98/2 0.235 35,91,317 73,49,873
V/s 9 gsDVj
Shankar
21 693/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/114/201 15/3, 18/2, 0.355 63,11,182 98,44,809
V/s Duda 9 19, 21/1 gsDVj
22 686/2020 LAO ISP EXLA/105/201 12/4 0.155 39,28,040 34,79,102
V/s 9 gsDVj
Govind
uksV%%&mijksDr lHkh izdj.kksa esa Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh }kjk ,d gh xkoa ;esa
rFkk ,d gh {ks= esa gksus ds ckotwn rhu vyx vyx nj 68]00][email protected]&]
- : 28 :-
Connected Appeals)
85]00][email protected]& ,oa 1]15]00][email protected]& izfr gsDVj ds eku ls eqvkotk iznku fd;k x;k Fkk
vkSj ekuuh; ftyk U;k;ky; }kjk mlh {ks= ds fodz; i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij lHkh esa ,d
leku 2]14]50][email protected]& :i;s izfr gsDVj ds eku ls eqvkotk r; fd;k gSA
Submissions of Shri Vivek Patwa learned counsel for appellants
5- Shri Vivek Patwa, learned counsel submitted that the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded the just and proper compensation by
taking into consideration all the relevant factors prevailing at the
relevant point of time, but the Reference Court has erred in relying on
the law laid down by the apex Court which was distinguishable from
the facts of the present case. The Reference Court has erred in holding
that the subject land is situated near the National Highway whereas the
National Highway was only proposed and the same has not yet been
constructed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that no
layout plan of the city in respect of the subject land was published yet
and no layout plan of the neighbouring area was produced before the
Reference Court. In order to take the value of acquired land only three
sale deeds have been applied as an exemplar which pertains to a small
area of land. The land owners have not carried out any development
work, thus the deduction of 75% to 80% ought to have been applied by
the Reference Court.
6- Learned counsel Shri Patwa further argued the learned Reference
Court has failed to appreciate that by constructing a canal in the land of
land owners the fertility of the remaining land is bound to increase in
many folds hence they are already benefited. From the canal, they
would be entitled to get water for irrigation at nominal charges hence
the compensation enhanced by the learned court is on the higher side
which would cause a heavy financial burden on the appellants i.e.
- : 29 :-
Connected Appeals)
beyond the total project cost. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Radheshyam & others (Civil Appeal
No. 8857-8858/2022 decided on 24.11.2022) wherein the award passed
based on sale-deeds of the neighbouring villages has been deprecated
and the matter has been remanded back to the High Court for fresh
adjudication.
7- Shri Patwa learned counsel further submitted that it has also been
held that the deduction towards development work can range from 20%
to 75% depending on various factors. The Land Acquisition Officer
bifurcated the entire acquired land into two categories, the first
category is unirrigated land and the second category is irrigated land.
The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of Rs.85.00
Lakhs per Hect. for unirrigated land, Rs.1.15 Crores for irrigated land,
but the Reference Court has calculated the amount of compensation at
a uniform rate of Rs.2.14 Crores for both types of categories which is
unjust and improper on his part. The acquired land is not situated on
the road, but it is situated in an interior part of the village where no
irrigation facility was there. The sale deeds of small plots have wrongly
been taken into consideration. The amount of compensation awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer has been doubled by the Reference
Court. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Reference Court is
liable to be set aside and the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer be restored.
Submissions on behalf of counsel for landowners
8- Per contra, Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel appearing for
some of the land owners in F.A. Nos. 661/2020, 665/2020, 668/2020,
- : 30 :-
Connected Appeals)
669/2020, 671/2020 and 698/2020, contended that no interference is
called for with the award passed by the Reference Court as just and
proper compensation has now been awarded based on the sale-deeds
and the basis of market guidelines as well. By applying both methods
the amount of compensation comes to Rs.2.14 Crores per hectare
which has rightly been awarded now. The appellants did not produce
any documentary as well as oral evidence before the Reference Court.
All the grounds raised in these appeals are very general and vague in
nature. The appellants have failed to cross-examine any witness. Shri
Garg learned senior advocate urged that the deduction of 83% in total
is on the higher side coupled with the fact that no development is
required to be done in the construction of canal work and there is no
wastage of land for the development of remaining land. Hence, there
should not be any deduction in the amount of compensation. It is
further submitted that after the deduction of 70%, a further deduction
of 45% has been made which has resulted in a drastic reduction in the
amount of the compensation, hence there is a cross-appeal seeking
enhancement by one of the landowners. In support of his contention,
the learned senior advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the
apex Court in the case of Nelson Fernandes V/s. Special Land
Acquisition Officer : (2007) 9 SCC 447; Ashrafi & others V/s. State
of Haryana : (2013) 5 SCC 527; Mohinder Singh V/s. State of
Haryana: 2015 (1) MPLJ 51; Chief Executive Officer, IDA V/s. Hira
Lal (Dead) through LRs. (Civil Appeal Nos. 17551-17598 of 2017
decided on 26.10.2017); Mohammad Yusuf V/s. State of Haryana:
AIR 2018 SC 2248; and judgment of this Court in the case of Hiralal
(Dead) through legal representatives (F.A. No.901/2008 & other
- : 31 :-
Connected Appeals)
connected appeals decided on 12.1.2015).
9- Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel appearing for respondents,
land owners in F.A. Nos. 672/2020, 691/2020, 700/2020, 701/2020 and
705/2020, added that the acquired land and the nearby lands had
already been included in the municipal area as well as in the city
development plan. An industrial area has been developed on the land
which is 200 meters away from the land in the acquisition, therefore,
the acquired land is having a high potential value. Though no cross-
appeal has been filed, but learned counsel submits that the learned
Reference Court has wrongly applied the deduction of a total of 83%
and which is on the higher side. No development is required after the
construction of the canal. No evidence has been adduced by the
appellants. Hence, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
10- Shri Bharat Chitale, learned counsel for the respondents/land
owners in F.A. Nos. 670/2020, 673/2020, 675/2020, 676/2020,
690/2020 and 703/2020, supported the above submission and added
that the learned Reference Court has rightly assessed the compensation
under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of 2013. The land owners
have examined all the relevant witnesses from the office of NHAI,
Revenue Department, etc. to establish that the land acquired is situated
near the development area, industrial area, highway and in rebuttal, the
appellants have not examined any witness and also not produced any
document. Therefore, the compensation is just and proper. Shri Chittale
learned counsel further submitted that the deductions which are
applicable for the acquisition of the land for the development of the
residential area or industrial area cannot be applied in case of the
acquisition of the land for a canal or railway line. The apex Court in the
- : 32 :-
Connected Appeals)
case of Kanta Devi V/s. State of Haryana : (2008) 15 SCC 201 has
held that deduction should not exceed more than 70% and deduction of
60% of the market value would be reasonable. In support of his
contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments
passed by the apex Court in the case of Mohammad Yusuf V/s. State
of Haryana : (2018) 16 SCC 105; Chandrashekhar (D) by LRs. V/s.
Land Acquisition Officer : (2012) 1 SCC 390; Sajan V/s. State of
Maharashtra : (2020) 14 SCC 139; Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka (D)
by LRs. V/s. State of Maharashtra: (2016) 14 SCC 279; and Maya
Devi (D) by LRs. V/s. State of Haryana : (2018) 2 SCC 474.
11- Shri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-land owners in F.A. Nos. 660/2020, 662/2020, 663/2020,
666/2020, 667/2020, 678/2020, 679/2020, 680/2020, 682/2020,
683/2020, 692/2020, 693/2020, 695/2020, 696/2020, 697/2020,
699/2020 and 702/200 has adopted the arguments advanced by Shri
A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel and Shri B.A. Chitale, advocate in
other connected appeals. Learned counsel also submitted that the
percentage of deduction applied by the learned Reference Court is on
the higher side which is liable to be reduced. Though no cross-appeal
has been filed, the impugned award is liable to be maintained. All the
appeals filed by the appellants are liable to be dismissed.
12- At last, Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents/land owners in F.A. Nos. 681/2020 and 704/2020
argued in support of the impugned award passed by the learned
Reference Court and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. The
learned senior advocate submitted that most of the area of acquired
lands are small areas, therefore, the sale deeds produced as an exemplar
- : 33 :-
Connected Appeals)
have rightly been considered by the learned Reference Court. In
support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of
the apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti V/s. Bipin
Kumar & another : (22004) 2 SCC 283.
Appreciation and conclusion
13. The appellants have filed these appeals mainly aggrieved by
enhancement of the value of the lands on the basis of sale-deeds used
as exemplars. The reference court also examined the market value of as
from the guidelines of the year 2017-2018 issued by the Collector
(Stamps). The claimants have exhibited as many as 9 sale-deeds
executed in the months of May, June, July and August of 2017, out of
which, learned Reference Court has taken into consideration the sale-
deeds dated 27.7.2017 (two) and 28.7.2017 as the notification u/s. 11 of
the Act was published on 3.9.2017 for which there is no illegality on
part of learned District Judge. By way of aforesaid sale-deeds, the land
of the nearby area was sold @ Rs. 13 Crores per Hect. whereas the area
of the land is small i.e. 0.019 Hect. Since the sale-deeds were
pertaining to small plots, therefore, learned Reference Court has though
assessed the value of the land @ Rs. 13 Crores per Hect., but reduced
the value of the land to Rs.3,90,000/- per Hect. by applying the
deduction of 70% which is also a correct approach of law and as per
catena of judgments passed by the Apex court.
14- In order to rebut these sale deeds it is important to mention here
that the appellants did not produce any evidence in respect of the value
of the properties. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market
value of the land at Rs.1,15,00,000/- per Hect. for irrigated land and
- : 34 :-
Connected Appeals)
Rs.85,00,000/- for un-irrigated land on the basis of guidelines issued by
the Dy. Registrar, Barwani vide letter dated 10.10.2018 for the year
2017-2018 for agriculture land.
15- But for assessing the market value of the acquired land on the
basis of sale deeds of the relevant year, the learned Reference Court
considered the guidelines issued for the year 2017-2018 for residential
and commercial plots. As per guidelines, the maximum market value of
the land near the road was Rs.40,000/- per Sq.mtr. and minimum
market value was Rs.4,500/- per Sq.mtr. Learned Reference Court has
taken the average value @ Rs.13,000/- per Sq.mtr. which comes to
Rs.13 Crores per Hect.
16- At the time of acquisition, all the lands were registered as
agricultural land in the revenue records. No documents pertaining to
the diversion have been exhibited by the landowners. The reference
ought to have considered the guidelines issued for agricultural land.
Because of this there is a difference in the market value of the land
from Rs. 1,15,00,000 to Rs.13,00,00,000.00 per hectare in the
assessment done by the Land Acquisition Officer and learned Principle
District Judge. Such a huge difference has been balanced by applying
the deduction of 70% and 45 % by the learned Principle District Judge
to arrive at just and fair compensation payable to the land owners.
18- The land owners sought a reference for enhancement of the
compensation on the ground that their lands are situated near the
National Highway 347B and the same has been included in the area of
the Municipal Corporation as well as in the Master Plan as urban land.
According to them some of the lands have been reserved for 36 mtrs.
wide road in the residential area hence it was no more agricultural land.
- : 35 :-
Connected Appeals)
The landowners examined Dy. The manager of National Highway
Authority as P.W.6 deposed that on 14.6.2016 National Highway 347B
has been constructed which starts from Ashapur and ends at Barwani
via Anjad, Khandwa and the acquired land is near the said National
Highway and adjacent to Khandwa Baroda State Highway. The land
owners also examined Sunil John Minz from the office of Assistant
Director, Town & Country Department as P.W.5 to establish that the
acquired land has been included in the Master Plan as urban land. The
land owners also examined Patwari R.K. Chouhan as P.W.2 and
according to him, in the nearby land of the acquired land, the marriage
garden, restaurant, motor showroom, market, residential colony,
industrial area, etc. have been developed and at some distance, Segaon
Industrial Center, Balaji Vihar Colony, Shrinathdham Colony,
Gurudham colony, ESSAR Petrol Pump, Ashagram Sanstha, etc. have
been established, therefore, the land is having high potential value for
residential as well as commercial use. Hence, the sale deeds executed
vide Exh. P/20, P/22 and P/24 were executed in the month of July 2017
@ Rs.13 Crores per Hectare which was the market value for
commercial and residential plots as per the guidelines. As held above
by applying appropriate deduction i.e. 70 + 45 % just and fair
compensation has been arrived hence I do not find any perversity in
the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court hence no case for
any reduction as well as further enhancement is made out in these
appeals as well as in cross-appeal.
19- The only issue which requires consideration is, whether the
percentage of deductions has rightly been applied by the learned
Reference Court.
- : 36 :-
Connected Appeals)
20- Shri A.S. Garg learned senior counsel appearing for some of the
respondents/land owners, argued that the land in question was acquired
for the construction of a canal and the entire land has been used, and no
land was left or wasted for development therefore, there should not be
any deduction. Learned Reference Court has applied the deduction of
70% and thereafter, applied the further deduction of 45% hence the
total comes to 86.3% which is on higher side .
21- Shri Bharat A. Chitale learned counsel appearing for some of the
respondents/land owners submits that the apex Court in the case of
Chandrashekhar (supra) and the case of Sajan (supra) has held that as
long as cumulatively all deductions put together deduction should not
exceed the upper benchmark of 75%. However, in only one case, the
cross-appeal has been filed challenging the percentage of deduction
applied by the Reference Court.
22- It is correct that in the catena of cases the apex Court has held
that looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court should
apply the appropriate percentage but it should not be more than 75%.
In the present case, though the nearby land has been developed for
commercial, residential and other purposes, the fact remains that this
land was acquired as a canal for supplying water to the agriculturists.
Therefore, the market rate which has been taken into consideration by
the Reference Court is for residential and commercial plots which are
already on the higher side. Hence, applying the deduction @ 70% is
proper due to which valuation has come down to Rs.3,90,00,000/- still
which is three times the valuation assessed by the Land Acquisition
Officer. So far as the further deduction of 45% is concerned, the same
has been applied for the assessment of the market value of the land and
- : 37 :-
Connected Appeals)
due to this the valuation has come down to Rs.2,14,50,000/- which is
approximately double the valuation assessed by the Land Acquisition
Officer. For the construction of a canal, the land on both sides is
required to be left for doing the repair work, cleaning in the canal from
time to time, etc. In the canal, for the free flow of water, the gravity
level has to be maintained. The Government is not earning any profit
by constructing a canal and the farmers pay the nominal charges to get
water from the canal for irrigation purposes. Therefore, a further 45%
deduction has rightly been applied. Over and above 100% solatium has
been granted along with interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, no
deduction or enhancement is required in the assessment done by the
learned Reference Court. I do not find any merit in all these appeals
and cross-appeal.
Accordingly, all the appeals stand dismissed. Let a photocopy of
this order be retained in the file of each connected appeal.
However, no order as to costs.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2023.04.18 12:11:05 +05'30'
