Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Lakkhu Urf Lakhan 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. 714 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
LAKKHU URF LAKHAN S/O LATE,
HARPRASAD PATEL, AGED 50 YEARS,
RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JASWANTPURA
TEHSIL AMANGANJ DISTRICT PANNA,
M.P.
..... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURDEEP KHAMPARIA - ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.05.2024
Pronounced on : 13.05.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
1
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 29.07.2019 passed by First
Additional District Judge, Panna in MJC No.03/2018 by which
compensation of Rs. 5,09,625/- awarded by Land Acquisition Officer
(in short 'LAO') has been enhanced additionally to Rs.6,75,000/-
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 Lakkhu (PW1) made by him in para 11 of his statement
to the effect that he has not produced any document showing
irrigation of land from nearby nullah in the shape of permission to do
so. 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 respondent was 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 respondent 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 appellant 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 land of Khasra No.515 area 1.500
hectare, situated in Village Jaswantpura, Tahsil Amanganj belonging
to the respondent was acquired. Since the respondent was 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 land in dispute was recorded in Khasra of the year 2007-08
to 2007-12 (Ex.P-3) 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 Lakkhu (PW-1) and Surendra
Shrivastava (DW1) was recorded, who have specifically stated that
the land belonging to the respondent is being irrigated from the
nearby nullah through diesel pump. This aspect has been taken into
consideration by Reference Court in para 21 to 23 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
appellant has 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 his own case. As discussed
above, in the present case the respondent has proved his 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 application 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 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
pb
Date: 2024.05.14 14:26:22 +05'30'
