Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shahnaz Khan vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 2 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
FIRST APPEAL No. 575 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SHAHNAZ KHAN W/O MR. NASIR AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT
1. 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND HOUSEWIFE 169/2,
JUNA RISALA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. IQBAL RABIA W/O DR. MASOOD AHMAD KHAN, AGED ABOUT
2. 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE HOUSEWIFE 169/2, JUNA
RISALA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. AFSHAH KHAN W/O AYUB AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 36
3. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE HOUSEWIFE 169/2, JUNA
RISALA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI YOGESH MITTAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. L.P.G. BOTTLING
1. PLANT, GRAM MANGLIA, TAHSIL SANWER, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER S.D.O. SANWER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2. VASHNIVI KIRANA VILLAGE DHARAMPURI, IN FRONT OF INDIAN
OIL PETROL PUMP TEH. SANWER, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI SANDEEP KOCHATTA, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 / STATE BY SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, PANEL LAWYER)
FIRST APPEAL No. 576 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT.IQBAL RABIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 02-05-2024
16:39:38
-2-
AYUB AHMED KHAN S/O DR. MASOOD AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT
2. 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 169/2, JUNA RISALA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NASIR AHMED KHAN S/O DR. MASOOD AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT
3. 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 169/2, JUNA RISALA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DR. MASOOD AHMAD KHAN S/O YUSUF KHAN (DELETED AS PER C.O.
4. DT.26/02/2024), AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
169/2, JUNA RISALA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI YOGESH MITTAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
2.
OFFICER S.D.O. , SANWER, DISTRICT- INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI SANDEEP KOCHATTA, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 / STATE BY SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, PANEL LAWYER)
FIRST APPEAL No. 591 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
BHAGWAN S/O JAGNNATHJI KHATI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM DAKACHYA, A.B. ROAD, TEHSIL
SANWER, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NILESH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
HINDUSTAN PETROLIUM CORPORATION LTD. .P.G. BOTTLING
1. PLANT, MANGLYA ROAD, TEHSIL SANWER, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR THE
2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INDORE DIVISION SETTELITE
BHAWAN, COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 02-05-2024
16:39:38
-3-
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI SANDEEP KOCHATTA, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 / STATE BY SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 15th April, 2024
Delivered on : 02nd May, 2024
These appeals having been heard and reserved for order coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved
in these case, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals were
analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts of First
Appeal No.575 of 2005 are narrated hereunder.
01. The appellants have filed the present appeals under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act of 1894') r/w section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the award dated
04.07.2005 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Indore in Land
Acquisition Reference Case No.16/2003, whereby their claim for
enhancement of the compensation has been declined.
02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited requested the State
Government to acquire private land for the establishment of a Liquid
Petroleum Gas (LPG) Filling Unit at Manglia Road, District - Sanver.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification dated
10.08.2001 under Section 4(1) of the of 1894 for the acquisition of land
bearing Halka No.26/2, Village - Rahukhedi, Tehsil - Sanver adjacent to
Manglia Road. The notification was published in the two newspapers on
24.08.2001 and also affixed in the Tehsil Office, Sanver. An opportunity
was given to the landowners to submit objections under Section 5 of the
Act of 1894. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894
was published in the gazette dated 27.07.2001 and the same was
published in two local Hindi newspapers on 09.04.2002, in which the
details of the following land was given:-
Name of Village Khasra Number Area in Hectare
Rahukhedi 81 1.032
Rahukhedi 82/1 2.064
Rahukhedi 82/4 0.607
Rahukhedi 83/1 2.327
Rahukhedi 83/2 0.656
Total Area 5 6.686 Hectare
2.2. The Land Acquisition Officer requested the Tehsildar, Kshipra,
Assistant Director, Horticulture, Indore, Forest Officer, Indore and
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Indore to send the
valuation report of houses, animals, trees, tube wells etc. A letter dated
10.12.2002 was also written to the Deputy Registrar, Sanver for the
market guidelines of the properties of Village - Rahukhedi. Thereafter,
notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 18.11.2002 to
the landowners for submitting an objection. The appellants submitted
objections on 10.12.2002, 20.12.2002 and 27.12.2002.
2.3. After considering the objections and all other documentary
evidence, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated
06.09.2003 under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 granting compensation
to the appellants for their irrigated land, house, tube well, trees etc. with
interest and solatium. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market
value of the land @ Rs.5,72,766/- per hectare.
2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid compensation assessment,
especially in respect of the land, the appellants/landowners sought a
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector
accepted their reference and sent it to the District Court for adjudication.
According to the appellants, the market value of their land is
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre and the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the
market value of the land @ Rs.5,72,766/- per hectare without any basis
or material. According to the appellants, their land is 100 meters away
from National Highway No.3, AB Road, Indore. Nearby land has been
developed for commercial purposes. It is further submitted that they
were getting the 2-3 crops, vegetables, fruits etc. from the said land,
therefore, the compensation is liable to be enhanced.
2.5. Respondent No.1 / HPCL submitted objected to the
enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the Land
Acquisition Officer has awarded just and fair compensation on the basis
of the rates and materials collected from various Government Offices in
respect of the value of nearby lands and other properties and no further
enhancement is possible in it.
2.6. The land owners by way of evidence produced a copy of the
sale deed dated 14.10.1999 of the land bearing Survey No.67/10A, area
15000 sq.ft. Village - Rahukhedi sold @ Rs.2,25,000/- executed just
before the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of
1894. They have also produced another sale deed dated 21.09.2001,
whereby land of Patwari Halka No.26/2, Survey No.10/1B, Rahukhedi,
area 0.405 hectare was sold @ Rs.15,00,000/- per acre.
2.7. The appellants and respondents both examined their witnesses
and they were cross-examined. After appreciating the
evidence/documents that came on record vide impugned award dated
04.07.2005 the learned Reference Court dismissed the reference and
maintained the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence,
the present appeal is before this Court.
03. Shri Yogesh Mittal, and Nilesh Agrawal learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the learned District Court wrongly discarded
the sale deed (Ex-P/7) dated 21.09.2001 as the same is situated near the
National Highway and diverted for the godown purpose, whereas the
acquired land of these appellants only 500 - 600 meter away from the
highway. The Sale deed dated 14.10.1999 has been discarded because it
is a small plot of 15000 sq.ft. And diversion took place in the year 1992.
It is further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider
any of the sale deeds and arbitrarily assessed the compensation @
Rs.5,72,766/- per hectare for irrigated land. In support of his contention,
learned counsels placed reliance upon several judgments delivered by
the Apex Court in the cases of Printers House Private Limited v/s Mst
Saiyadan (Deceased) By LRs. & Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 133,
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot & Others v/s State of
Punjab & Others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432, Panna Lal Ghosh &
Others v/s Land Acquisition Collector & Others reported in (2004) 1
SCC 467 and Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) Through His
Heirs And LRs. & Others v/s State of Gujarat reported in (1989) 4
SCC 250, in which the Apex Court has held that if the comparable sale
method of valuation of land is adopted for determining the market value
of the acquired plot of land which it generally holds good for
determination of market value.
04. Per contra, Shri Kochatta, learned counsel for the HPCL
rebutted that the answering respondent exhibited the sale deeds of the
same village executed on 17.06.1999, 02.03.2002 and 28.03.2002 i.e.
one year prior or after the date of issuance of notification under Section
4 of the Act of 1894, in the year 2001. They have also produced the
Collector Guidelines of 2000 - 01 to show that the Land Acquisition
Officer has correctly assessed the market value for the purpose of
compensation. The burden to give evidence always lies on the land
owners to adduce cogent and reliable evidence that the compensation
offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. Mere production
of the sale deed is not sufficient and the claimant has to lead evidence to
show the vicinity, quality of land and amenities are similar to those
acquired land. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for HPCL has
placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of The
State of Mahdya Pradesh v/s Shantaram Through LRs. reported in
2019 SCC OnLine MP 5455, Sudarshan Ahuja & Others v/s The State
of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2014 (1) M.P.L.J. 653, The
State of Mahdya Pradesh v/s Umrao & Others reported in 2014 (2)
M.P.L.J. 28, Mukesh S/o Late Badamilal & Others v/s The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2017 (1) M.P.L.J. 706, Maya
Devi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Others v/s State of
Haryana & Another reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474, Bhupal Singh &
Others v/s State of Haryana reported in (2015) 5 SCC 801 and Nirmal
Singh & Others v/s State of Haryana Through Collector reported in
(2015) 2 SCC 160.
05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
06. The appellants/landowners placed reliance on only one sale
deed (Ex-P/6), as an exmplar by which only 15000 sq.ft. Land was sold
@ Rs.2,25,000/- of Survey No.67/10 situated at Village - Rahukhedi.
Although the sale deed was executed on 14.10.1999, the notification
under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued in the year 2001. By way
of the said notification, 6.686 hectares of land was acquired, therefore, a
market value of 15000 per sq.fts. smaller size of the land cannot be used
as an exemplar. Another sale deed (Ex-P/7), whereby the land bearing
Survey No.10/1B area 0.405 hectares was sold @ Rs.15,00,000/- on
21.09.2001 only after one month from the date of issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. This land is adjacent to
the road on the east side but the acquired land is far away from the
Highway hence there cannot be any comparison to ake value of the land
from enhancement.
07. In rebuttal the respondent / HPCL also produced the sale deeds
of nearby land of the same village, whereby the land was sold at a much
lower rate vide the sale deed dated 16.06.1999. An agricultural land area
of 0.890 hectares was sold @ Rs.2,51,000/- vide sale deed dated
02.03.2002, an agricultural land area of 0.074 hectares was sold @
Rs.32,000/- only vide sale deed dated 23.03.2002 and agricultural land
area 1.109RA was sold @ Rs.4,66,000/-. The respondent also produced
a copy of guidelines issued by the Sub Registrar, according to which the
value of the land of Village - Rahukhedi in the year 2000 - 01 was
Rs.3,20,000/- per hectare. Village - Rahukhedi is 17 km away from
Indore and in the year 1999, there was no commercial as well as
residential development in the said area. The suit land is 600 - 800 feet
inside the A.B. Road and there is no direct connecting road in between
as admitted by the claimants in cross-examination.
08. The main reliance of the appellants is on Ex-P/7, sale deed dated
21.09.2001, by which 0.405 hectares of land was sold for Rs.15,00,000/-
and in cross-examination, seller Vaibhav Rao admitted that his land is
adjacent to A.B. Road, seller/ owner got it diverted for godown purpose
i.e. other than agriculture purpose and area is much less as compared to
the acquired land, therefore, such sale deed has rightly been discarded
by the Reference Court.
09. The sale deed produced by the respondent / HPCL was of the
relevant period, by which the nearby land was sold as per the guidelines
fixed by the Collector, therefore, the learned District Judge rightly did
not find any ground to enhance the value of the land. Learned Land
Acquisition Officer has rightly granted compensation @ Rs.5,72,766/-
which is much more than the value of the land as compared to the sale
deed produced by the respondents. The appellants have also got interest,
solatium and additional compensation for trees, tube wells, houses etc.
No case for enhancement of award is made out in the matter.
10. In view of the above, the First Appeal stands dismissed. The
order passed by this Court in the present appeal shall govern the
connected appeals also, therefore, connected First Appeals also stand
dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected appeals also.
The original records be sent back to the Court of the District
Judge.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
