Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Sopan on 20 May, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 F.A. No.1571 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
FIRST APPEAL No. 1571 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
COLLECTOR, BURHANPUR DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MP)
2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SUB
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (MP)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MP)
.........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND
SOPAN S/O PANDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE
ICCHAPUR, TEHSIL & DISTRICT BURHANPUR
(MP)
..... RESPONDENT
(BY JAIDEEP SIRPURKAR - ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.05.2024
Pronounced on : 20.05.2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following :
2 F.A. No.1571 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This first appeal is listed for hearing on I.A No.9589/2018 and
admission but with the consent of counsel for the parties, delay occurred
in filing of the appeal is hereby condoned and appeal is heard finally.
2. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (in short "the Act") has been filed against the award dated
13.12.2017 passed by District Judge, Burhanpur in MJC No.86/2012 by
which compensation @ Rs.2,24,863/- per hectare awarded by Land
Acquisition Officer (in short 'LAO') has been enhanced to @
Rs.4,82,353/- per hectare.
3. Challenging the award passed by Reference Court, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the land in
dispute was un-irrigated land and the compensation awarded by LAO
to the respondent was rightly awarded @ Rs.2,24,863/- per hectare as
per average rate of sale of nearby land of acquired land of the village
for last 3 years and therefore the Reference Court has committed a
material illegality directing payment of compensation to respondent @
Rs.4,82,353/- per hectare. Challenging the award passed by Reference
Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Court
below has committed illegality in determining the compensation on
the basis of sale deed of highest market value mentioned at item no. 5
of the Chart (Ex.D/1). 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 prays for allowing the
appeal.
4. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondent supported the
award passed by Reference Court and prays for dismissal of the
appeal. He submits that Reference Court has not committed any
illegality in determining the compensation taking into consideration
the sale deed of highest market value mentioned in the Chart (Ex.D/1)
produced on behalf of the appellants themselves.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Undisputed facts are that land of Khasra No.1579/1 area 0.93
hectare situated in Village Ichchhapur, Tahsil and Distt. Burhanpur
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 award, the Reference Court
has held that the land acquired under the notification was un-irrigated
land and awarded 30% solatium and interest @ 9% for first one year
and 15% thereafter till payment, on enhanced amount, in accordance
with the Act.
7. By producing the sale deeds (Ex.P/2 & P/4) and two un-
exhibited sale deeds the respondent has prayed for compensation @
Rs.16,69,231/- per hectare, which has been denied by Reference Court
and taking into consideration the highest market value mentioned at
item no. 5 of Chart (Ex.D/1) produced by the appellants-State, has
awarded compensation @ Rs.4,82,353/- per hectare, regarding which
detailed consideration has been done in para 19 to 24 of the impugned
award. It is pertinent to mention here that other claim of respondent in
respect of standing trees etc. has been denied.
8. So far as the question of limitation is concerned the appellants
have failed to substantiate their submissions by producing relevant
evidence. However, no such objection appears to have been taken
before Court below, hence the reference case cannot be said to be
barred by limitation.
9. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Reference
Court has not committed any mistake in passing the impugned award
and in enhancing the compensation.
10. Accordingly, there being no substance in this appeal, it fails and
is hereby dismissed.
11. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Date: 2024.05.31 17:25:58 +05'30'
