Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Keshar Bai on 20 May, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 F.A. No.1567 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
FIRST APPEAL No. 1567 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
KESHAR BAI, W/O DAGADU MAHAJAN, 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.1567 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This first appeal is listed for hearing on I.A No.9583/2018 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
06.12.2017 passed by District Judge, Burhanpur in Reference MJC No.
75/2012 by which compensation @ Rs.3,72,439/- per hectare awarded
by Land Acquisition Officer (in short 'LAO') has been enhanced to @
Rs.7,95,455/- 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 irrigated land and the compensation awarded by LAO to
the respondent was rightly awarded @ Rs.3,72,439/- per hectare as
per average rate of sales 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.7,95,455/- 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. 2
of the Chart (Ex.D/2). 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
order 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/2) 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.1575 area 0.54
hectare and 1576 area 0.55 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 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.33,38,462/- per hectare, which has been denied by Reference Court
and taking into consideration the highest market value mentioned at
item no. 2 of Chart (Ex.D/2) produced by the appellants-State, has
awarded compensation @ Rs.7,95,455/- per hectare, regarding which
detailed consideration has been done in para 23 to 23 of the impugned
award. It is pertinent to mention here that other claim of respondent in
respect of well and 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: 2024.05.24 11:28:07 +05'30'
