Ram Singh Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12739 MP

                                                     1
                          IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                  BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                           ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                         WRIT PETITION No. 14081 of 2016

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    RAM SINGH PARMAR S/O SHRI HIRALAL
                               PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, VILLAGE
                               MULLANI POST GAWAKHEDA TEHSIL ASHTA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    LAXMAN SINGH PARMAR S/O SHRI HIRALAL
                               PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE
                               MULLANI POST GAWAKHEDA TEHSIL ASHTA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    SHANKAR LAL PARMAR S/O SHRI HIRALAL
                               PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VILLAGE
                               MULLANI POST GAWAKHEDA TEHSIL ASHTA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    LAKHANLAL PARMAR(DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
                               REPRESENTATIVES AJAY PARMAR S/O LATE
                               LAKHANLAL PARMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                               VILLAGE MULLANI POST GAWAKHEDA TEHSIL
                               ASHTA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         5.    VED PRAKASH S/O LATE LAKHANLAL PARMAR,
                               AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE MULLANI POST
                               GAWAKHEDA     TEHSIL    ASHTA   (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         6.    ARCHANA PARMAR D/O LATE LAKHANLAL
                               PARMAR VILLAGE MULLANI POST GAWAKHEDA
                               TEHSIL ASHTA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         7.    SUSHILA PARMAR W/O LATE LAKHANLAL
                               PARMAR OCCUPATION: AGE ADULT VILLAGE
                               MULLANI POST GAWAKHEDA TEHSIL ASHTA
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                           .....PETITIONERS
                         (BY SHRI RAJNEESH GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Signing time: 8/9/2023
7:49:27 PM
                                                            2
                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
                               VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    COLLECTOR SEHORE DISTT. SEHORE (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL
                               OFFICER SEHORE TEH. ASHTA DISTT. SEHORE
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved of order dated 17.03.2016, passed by the Collector Sehore.

2. It is submitted that award was passed on 06.06.2008. Name of the petitioners appears in Schedule-A attached with the award at Serial No.3. Thus, it is not in dispute that petitioners' land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is also not in dispute that amount of compensation was not deposited before taking possession of the land. Therefore, in terms of paragraph 119 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129], State is liable to pay interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited; and after one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest shall be @ 15% per annum. In view of said facts, disposal of petition is sought.

3. Shri Subodh Kathar, submits that the order of the Collector is in regard to one Shri Nandlal Parmar. Secondly, Collector has mentioned in the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 8/9/2023 7:49:27 PM

order that notices were issued to the persons whose land was acquired. Out of 33 farmers, 23 farmers whose land was acquired had received compensation, but applicant and 11 other farmers had not received the compensation. On 19.08.2013and 07.09.2013, camp was also conducted at Village Mullani for distribution of compensation, then Nandlal Parmar, S/o Kishanlal Parmar and seven other farmers had received compensation 15.12.2014 and 22.12.2014. It is mentioned that others did not receive compensation, therefore, there is no justification for initiating proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it reveals that learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out that the amount so assessed by the Land Acquisition Authority was deposited on or before taking possession of the land. Since this aspect is missing and Collector has committed a factual error while passing the impugned order, inasmuch as, when land of 33 farmers was acquired, then after paying compensation to 23 farmers, 12 farmers could not have been left out as is mentioned on the internal page 2 of the order of the Collector, Sehore. This reflects that Collector Sehore has not applied his mind to the fact situation. Accordingly, impugned order being cryptic, deserves to be set aside and is

hereby, set aside.

5. As far as second objection is concerned that the order is in relation to one Nandlal and not in relation to the petitioners, it is an admitted fact that the law laid down by Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra), is a judgment in rem and not a judgment in personam. All Similarly situated persons will be governed by that judgment. It is not the case of the State Government Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 8/9/2023 7:49:27 PM

that petitioners had taken compensation and therefore, no interest is payable in their case. Since the judgment in Indore Development Authority (supra), is in rem, therefore, it will be applicable to all the farmers to whom compensation was not paid in time or for whom compensation was not deposited with the appropriate authority as mentioned in para 119 of the award.

6. Respondents have not enclosed copy of any of the notices issued to the petitioners or their service report.

7. Therefore, it is directed that petitioners will be entitled to payment of interest @ 9% per annum from the time of taking of the possession and after one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest @ 15% per annum and this payment be made by the State Government, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

7. In above terms, petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 8/9/2023 7:49:27 PM