Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Krishna Kumar on 21 March, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2023
FIRST APPEAL No. 184 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, BARGI DIVERSION
PROJECT JHINJHARI, DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DEVESH JAIN - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. KRISHNA KUMAR S/O MURARI
LAL VERMA, AGE ABOUT 39
YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI,
DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. LATE KAMLABAI C/O LEGAL
NOMINEE
(i) ASHA BAI W/O LATE ASHOK
KUMAR VERMA, AGED ABOUT
56 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI,
DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(ii) ANUJ VERMA S/O LATE
ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(iii) KRISHNA KUMAR S/O
LATE MURARI LAL VERMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
(iv) KAILASH VERMA S/O LATE
MURARI LAL VERMA, AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 24-03-2023
12:12:54
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KESHAV PRASAD S/O LATE
MOTI LAL AGRAWAL, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MATHURA PRASAD SAINI S/O
SHRI CHHOTE LAL SAINI R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PURUSHOTTAM S/O SHRI
CHHOTE LAL SAINI R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SHRI SHANKARJI MAHRAJ
GAYA KUND SARVARAHKAR
(PRESIDEN) KAILASH VERMA
S/O LATE MURARI LAL
VERMA R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI,
DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. KAILASH KUMAR S/O LATE
MURARI LAL VERMA, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. (1) KARISHNA KUMAR S/O
LATE MOTILAL R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI,
DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(2) BRAJ BHOOSHAN PRASAD
S/O LATE MOTILAL R/O
VILLAGE BILHERI, TEHSIL
RITHI, DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(3) KESHAV PRASAD S/O LATE
MOTILAL R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI, DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. (1) ASHA DEVI W/O LATE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 24-03-2023
12:12:54
3
ASHOK KUMAR R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI,
DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(2) ANUJ KUMAR S/O ASHOK
KUMAR R/O VILLAGE
BILHERI, TEHSIL RITHI, DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. MITHLESH JAIN S/O LATE
HEMCHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O
SARAFA BAZAR
RAGHUNATHGANJ WARD
KATNI TEHSIL & DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YAGYAVALK SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for order this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act
has been filed against the Award dated 27/09/2017 passed by First
Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Katni
(M.P.) in M.J.C. (Land Acquisition) Case No.1700016/2012, by which
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been
enhanced on the basis of the Collector guideline prevailing on the date
of notification.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are
that the lands of the respondents were acquired for Rani Avantibai
Sagar Project Narmada Ghati Development Corporation and
accordingly, the award dated 20/02/2009 was passed by the LAO.
3. Being aggrieved by the said award, the respondents preferred an
application for reference. The reference Court by the impugned Award
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 24-03-2023
12:12:54
has enhanced the compensation amount on the basis of the Collector
guideline which was prevailing in the year 2008-09.
4. Challenging the Award passed by the reference Court, it is
submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Collector guideline
cannot be taken as a guiding factor for adjudicating the market value of
the land. It is submitted that in fact the LAO had taken out the average
value of the land and therefore, the same should not have been
disturbed.
5. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The
State of M.P. Vs. Surya Kumar reported in 2010 (2) M.P.H.T. 68
and submitted that the guideline issued by the Collector for laying
down the market value for the purposes of collection of stamp duty can
be a guiding factor and accordingly, the Collector guideline has been
rightly taken into consideration.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. 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.
8. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 24-03-2023
12:12:54
without following the due procedure of law.
9. 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."
10. Thus, it is clear that the Court can consider the Collector
guideline prevailing at the relevant time of issuance of final
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 24-03-2023
12:12:54
notification, as a guiding factor for ascertaining the market value of the
land which was acquired.
11. The counsel for the appellant could not point out any perversity
in the reasoning assigned by the reference Court.
12. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference in the
matter.
13. As a consequence thereof, the Award dated 27/09/2017 passed
by First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District
Judge, Katni (M.P.) in M.J.C. (Land Acquisition) Case
No.1700016/2012, is hereby affirmed.
14. No order as to cost.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
shubhankar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 24-03-2023
12:12:54
