The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manish Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 13785 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manish Kumar on 13 May, 2024

Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT JABALPUR

                         BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

                   FIRST APPEAL No. 578 of 2020

BETWEEN:-

      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. SUB
      DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) CUM LAND
      ACQUISITION OFFICER PAWAI DIST. PANNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                .........APPELLANT

(BY SHRI MUKUND AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    MUKESH KUMAR S/O SHRI RAM SAJIVAN
      PATEL, AGED 35 YEARS.

2.    RAM PRAKASH, S/O RAM SAJIVAN PATEL,
      AGED 45 YEARS.

3.    RAMSAJIVAN, S/O LEELADHAR PATEL,
      AGED 65 YEARS.

4.    ASHISH KUMAR,    S/O    BHUPAT   PATEL,
      AGED 22 YEARS.

5.    KARANSHING,     S/O      CHANDRABHAN
      PATEL, AGED 26 YEARS.

6.    JAGATRAJ, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE
      BANDI PATEL.




1
 7.     DADOLI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE BANDI
       PATEL.

8.     SHRIPAT PATEL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O
       LATE BANDI PATEL.

9.     SITARAM, S/O RAMADHEEN PATE, AGED
       55 YEARS.

10.    BABULALA, S/O RAMADHEEN PATE, AGED
       80 YEARS.

11.    LALLU, S/O MUNNILAL PATEL, AGED 35
       YEARS.

12.    MURLIDHAR, S/O                 LEELADHAR             PATEL,
       AGED 45 YEARS.

       [ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NABHARI,
       TAHSIL GUNNOUR, DISTRICT PANNA M.P]

                                                                      ..... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SUDHAKAR MANI PATEL, NITIN SHUKLA, VIDHYA
SHANKAR MISHRA & J.P. PATEL, ADVOCATES)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Reserved on            :       09.05.2024
       Pronounced on :                13.05.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming

on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following :

                                   JUDGMENT

This first appeal is listed for hearing on admission but with the consent of parties, is heard finally.

2. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by First Additional District Judge, Panna in MJC No.18/2017 by which compensation to each of the respondents Rs.2,34,264/-; 2,94,192/-; 6,53,760/-; 5,93,832/-; 10,89,600/-; 2,50,608/-; 2,46,522/-; 2,45,160/-; 2,46,522/-; & 6,27,882/- awarded by Land Acquisition Officer (in short 'LAO') has been enhanced additionally to Rs.2,06,400/- Rs.2,59,200/- Rs.4,17,600/- Rs.5,23,200/- Rs.9,60,000/- Rs.4,94,400/- Rs.2,16,000/- Rs.2,16,000/- Rs.2,16,000/- & Rs.5,52,000/- holding the acquired land to be irrigated land.

3. Challenging the award passed by Reference Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the land in dispute was an un-irrigated land and therefore the Reference Court committed a material illegality by treating the land as an irrigated land merely on the basis of revenue entry made in remark column of Khasra that too after ignoring report given by Joint Inspection Committee and admissions of respondents made by them in their statements to the effect that there was no personal bore or well in the land and irrigation was being done from nearby bore(s). Learned Counsel submits that the land was acquired for Irrigation Project, therefore, land in question cannot be treated as irrigated land. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority and Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 745 (para 10) learned Counsel submits that claimant has to prove his case. He further submits that Court below has committed illegality in taking into consideration the guidelines fixed by Collector in

respect of market value of the land but it ought to have calculated the compensation applying the method of last 3 years' sale deeds. Learned Counsel further submits that just contrary to provision of section 72 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013'), Reference Court has erred in awarding interest @ 9% for first one year and 15% interest after one year on the enhanced amount. For proper appreciation, Section 72 of the Act of 2013 reads as under :

"Sec.72. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.-If the sum, which in the opinion of the Authority concerned, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Authority concerned may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per cent. per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Authority:

Provided that the award of the Authority concerned may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid to the Authority after the date or expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent. per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Authority before the date of such expiry."

Learned counsel also submits that the reference application was barred by limitation because the respondents were well aware of the acquisition proceedings as well as the award passed by LAO. With these submissions learned Counsel prayed for allowing the appeal.

4. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by Reference Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal. It is submitted by the counsel that in two identical cases, the grounds raised by the appellants have already been dealt with by Coordinate Benches of this Court (at Jabalpur) by order dated 8.12.2022 passed in FA No. 718/2022 (Executive Engineer and another Vs. Prembahadur) {affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP (Civil) Diary No. 20393/2023 on 06.07.2023} and by order dated 06.02.2023 passed in FA No. 256/2022 (State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Nandkishore). It is further submitted that from Khasra entry it is clear that the land acquired by the appellant was an irrigated land and the report of Joint Inspection Committee, cannot be considered over and above Khasra entries and other cogent evidence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Undisputed facts are that lands of Khasra no. 259/4, 258/5, 258/1, 258/2, 260/2, 260/4, 193, 194, 255/4, 255/3, 255/1, 259/7 and 258/8 belonging to the respondents were acquired. Since the respondents were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the LAO, therefore, a reference was made and by the impugned order the Reference Court has held that the land acquired under the notification was irrigated land and not un-irrigated as held by the LAO and awarded 100% solatium and interest @ 9% for first one year and 15% thereafter till payment, on enhanced amount, in accordance with the Act of 2013.

7. The lands in dispute were recorded in Khasras of the year 2012- 18 (Ex.P-2, P-13, P-17, P-27, P-29, P-32, P-36, P-38, P-39 & P-45) as

irrigated land. Two Coordinate Benches of this Court while deciding the first appeal in the case of Prembahadur ( supra) and Nandkishore (supra) have also considered the khasra entry, according to which the land, which was acquired in the said cases was shown to be irrigated land in the Khasra. Even otherwise in the present case the evidence of Mukesh Kumar Patel (PW-1), Ram Prakash Patel (PW-2), Ram Sajiwan Patel (PW-3), Ashish Kumar Patel (PW-4), Karan Singh Patel (PW-5), Jagatraj Patel (PW-6), Sitaram Patel (PW-7), Babulal Patel (PW-8), Lallu Patel (PW-9) and Murlidhar Patel (PW-10) was recorded, who have specifically stated that the land belonging to the respondents is being irrigated from the nearby Bores and K.P. Namdev (DW-1) has admitted the said fact in para 5 of his statement. This aspect has been taken into consideration by Reference Court in para 58 to 61 of its order.

8. In presence of such direct and admissible evidence, the report prepared by Joint Inspection Committee regarding nature of land cannot be considered. In the present case, even as per gist of the case of appellant, the land was irrigated from illegal sources, which the appellants have not been able to establish. At the same time, submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the land has been acquired for Irrigation Project, therefore, it should be presumed to be un-irrigated land, is also not acceptable.

9. Undoubtedly, in absence of guidelines, the method of consideration of last 3 years' sale deed should be adopted for calculating the compensation, but in the present case guidelines in respect of market value of the property is available, which has been

made basis for calculating the compensation by LAO as well as by Reference Court, therefore, in the appeal no such objection can be raised by appellant-State. Even otherwise, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, Jabalpur vs. Mohd. Shahbuddin and Ors. 2022 (3) MPLJ 674 has held that guidelines fixed by Collector have statutory recognition. Relevant paragraphs of which are as under :

"34. As noticed, the judgments of Supreme Court on which reliance is placed by Shri Atul Nema are based on the aspect of determination of compensation for the lands acquired under the Act of 1894. Section 23 of the Act of 1894 does not talk about specification of market value under the Indian Stamp Act whereas Section 26 of Act of 2013 laid emphasis on such market value and therefore, this statutory recognition of market value specified under the Stamp Act cannot be brushed aside. Indeed, it deserves serious recognition in view of legislative change in the determination of market value pursuant to the Act of 2013. We are constrained to hold that the Collector guidelines have received statutory colour if read with Section 75 of the Stamp Act and provisions of guidelines Rules, 2018 and therefore the Collector rate can certainly become the basis for determination of compensation for land acquired under Highways Act as well.

35. *****

36. In the case of Dyagala Devamma (Supra) the compensation was determined on the basis of sale deed (Ex. P/18) which was relating to a small piece of land out of large chunk of land (101

acres approximately). In this backdrop and in view of provisions of old act where there existed no statutory recognition to Collector guidelines, the Apex court applied the theory of deduction. This theory, in view of statutory recognition given to Collector guidelines in Section 26 (1)(a) of Act of 2013, in our view has lost its importance and applicability. Putting it differently, it must be remembered that a singular different fact may change the precedential value of previous judgments. None of the judgments cited by Shri Nema deal with impact of Section 26(1)(a) of 2013 Act and Collector guidelines issued pursuant to the Indian Stamp Act. Thus, those judgments cannot be pressed into service in this case."

10. Needless to mention that procedure in Reference case is like a civil suit and the claimant has to prove its own case. As discussed above, in the present case the respondents have proved their case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. On the contrary the appellant has failed to substantiate its submissions by producing relevant evidence. In absence of any evidence regarding proper and due service of the award passed by LAO and in view of second proviso to section 64(2) of the Act of 2013, the reference case cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

11. So far as argument in respect of grant of interest @ 9% and 15% on the enhanced compensation, is concerned, the same is in accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Act of 2013, hence the argument of the learned counsel has no force.

12. Thus this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference Court has not committed any mistake in passing the impugned order and in enhancing the compensation.

13. Accordingly, there being no substance in this appeal, it fails and is hereby dismissed.

14. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE

SN