Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Gordhanlal S/O Bondar Singh (Deceased) ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-1- FA-741-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
FIRST APPEAL No. 741 of 2018
BADRIPRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somesh Gobhuj- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 742 of 2018
DECEASED GORDHANLAL THROUGH. LRS. GORA BAI AND
OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somesh Gobhuj- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
FIRST APPEAL No. 783 of 2018
AJUDDHYA BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somesh Gobhuj- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1672 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BADRIPRASAD
Appearance:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 04-04-2025
16:29:56
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-2- FA-741-2018
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt. Advocate for the appellant / State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj- Advocate for the respondent.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1673 of 2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
GORDHANLAL S/O BONDAR SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS
GORA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Govt. Advocate for the appellant / State.
Shri Somesh Gobhuj- Advocate for the respondent.
Reserved on : 26.03.2025
Delivered on : 04.04.2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in
the present appeals, all are being heard analogously and being decided
by this common order.
02. These five first appeals i.e. First Appeal Nos.741/2018, 742/2018,
783/2018, 1672/2019 and 1673/2019 are arising out of the acquisition
proceedings concerning agricultural land situated in Gram Ramdi, Tehsil
Kalapipal of Shajapur district. The case of the appellant is that the
respondent state took forcibly possession of their land through the
Public Works Department in the years of 1978 - 79 for the construction
of the Khardonkalan-Ugli, Shujalpur road without initiating any
proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and without payment
of compensation.
03. Before the present proceedings, the appellants aggrieved by the
action of respondents filed various writ petitions in 2008 - 2009 seeking
formal acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-3- FA-741-2018
determination of compensation. The appellants in the petitions
specifically alleged that the road was being constructed on their land by
the respondents without acquiring them under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, of 1894. In one such petition filed by Pannalal in W.P.
No. 2116/2009 this court passed an order dated 15.04.2009 directing the
Collector, Shajapur to investigate the status of the land and if on finds
that no compensation has been paid, to fix and disburse the same
according to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also along
with it the interest from the date of possession. In light of this order, all
other similar petitions were disposed of with the same directions to the
collector, Shajapur.
04. Following the court orders, formal acquisition proceedings were
initiated in 2010 by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published on 08.01.2010. Thereafter
an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Shujalpur on
20.08.2010 wherein the compensation for land acquired in Gram Ramdi
for irrigated land was fixed at Rs. 3, 18,000 per hectare and
compensation for unirrigated land was fixed at Rs. 2, 09,000 per hectare
was awarded in favour of land owners. However, the interest for the
long period between the date of dispossession and award was denied
altogether and restricted to only the post-notification period in different
cases. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, landowners
invoked Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, leading to reference
proceedings before the Second Additional District Judge, Shujalpur.
Learned Reference Court has partly allowed the claim by enhancing the
amount of compensation but denied interest from the date of
dispossession till the date of the award.
05. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment these present five appeals
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-4- FA-741-2018
are filed before this High Court, out of which three appeals are filed by
the landowners seeking enhanced compensation along with interest from
the date of possession till the date of payment whereas two present
appeals are filed by the State challenging the enhancement and seeking
setting aside of the reference court judgment.
For the sake of convenience, the facts of each appeal are
provided as follows:
06. In First Appeal No. 741 of 2018, the appellant Badri Prasad is
the owner of irrigated land in Gram Ramdi bearing Survey No. 224/7
measuring 0.387 hectares. The possession of which was taken in 1978-
79 without initiating any acquisition proceedings. Aggrieved by this he
filed W.P. No. 2434/2009 in which directions were issued by this Court
and following which a notification was issued on 08.01.2010 after
which an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Shujalpur
on 20.08.2010 and the payment for which was released on 22.10.2010.
The appellant filed a Reference Case No. 16/2015 seeking enhancement
of compensation and interest from the date of possession which was
decided by judgment dated 29.11.2017 where the learned Reference
Court partly allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation by
Rs.1, 11,131 per hectare. The Reference Court also granted interest
under Section 28 of the Act at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
Section 4 notification i.e., 08.01.2010 for a period of one year and
thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of the award. In addition, a
simple interest at 15% per annum was also awarded from the date of the
award till the date of actual payment. However, the claim for interest for
the period from 1978-79 till 08.01.2010 was rejected.
07. In First Appeal No. 742 of 2018, the appellants Smt. Gora Bai
and Smt. Yogini Shankar is the legal representative of the late
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-5- FA-741-2018
Gordhanlal, who was the owner of land in Gram Ramdi bearing Survey
Nos. 45/1 admeasuring 0.073 hectares and survey no. 263/1
admeasuring 1.212 hectares which in total measures 1.285 hectares in
all. The lands were all irrigated and fertile when they were taken over in
1978-79 for the construction of the public road again without
acquisition or compensation. The appellants filed W.P. No. 1187/2008
and W.P. No. 2117/2009 wherein this Court passed similar directions
following which Land Acquisition proceedings were finally initiated
with notification Section 4 dated 08.01.2010, and the award dated
20.08.2010 was passed. The appellant filed a Reference Case No.
11/2015 seeking enhancement of compensation and interest from the
date of possession which was decided on 28.11.2017 wherein the
learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3, 69,001/-
per hectare and awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one
year from 08.01.2010 and 15% thereafter till the date of award, and
further 15% per annum simple interest till actual payment. However,
interest from 1978-79 till the date of notification was declined.
08. In First Appeal No. 783 of 2018, the appellant Smt. Ajuddhya
Bai is the owner of land in Gram Ramdi bearing Survey No. 44
admeasuring 0.120 hectares. Her land was also taken in 1978-79
without acquisition or compensation. She was one of the petitioners in
W.P. No. 2431/2009 which was decided vide order dated 22.04.2009 by
which this Court extended to her the benefit of directions passed in W.P.
No. 2116/2009 following which the Land acquisition proceedings were
initiated by issuing notification dated 08.01.2010 under Section 4 of
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an Award was passed on 20.08.2010.
The appellant filed a Reference Case which was decided by order dated
06.12.2017 wherein the claim of the appellant for interest from 1978-79
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-6- FA-741-2018
to 2010 was rejected on the ground that the original award did not
include such interest.
09. In First Appeal No. 1672/2019, the State is challenging the award
dated 29.11.2017 passed in Reference Case No. 16/2015, pertaining to
land owned by Badri Prasad whose land was treated as irrigated and
compensation was enhanced by the Reference Court along with interest
under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State contends
that such enhancement is excessive and not supported by sufficient
evidence and thus reference court judgment should be set aside.
10. In First Appeal No. 1673/2019, the State is challenging the award
dated 28.11.2017 passed in Reference Case No. 11/2015 relating to the
land of Late Gordhanlal now represented by legal heirs whereby the
compensation was enhanced on the finding that it was irrigated land.
The State submits that the reference court erred in doubling the rate
arbitrarily and without substantive evidence of irrigation and thus the
reference court judgement should be set aside.
Submissions in Landowners' Appeals
(F.A. 741/2018; F.A.742/2018; F.A. 783/2018)
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/landowners
in F.A. Nos. 741/2018, 742/2018, and 783/2018 submitted that the lands
in question were fertile and irrigated, located in close proximity to a
major public road and had considerable potential for development and
that the Reference Court although enhanced the compensation but did
not fully appreciate the market value as reflected in comparable sale
instances. Counsel further submitted that the sale deeds relied upon
before the Reference Court clearly established a higher prevailing
market rate but the reference court failed in appreciating the same.
12. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant's respective lands
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-7- FA-741-2018
were forcibly taken into possession as far back as 1978-79, and
remained in State occupation for more than three decades before formal
acquisition proceedings were initiated in 2010. Learned Counsel
submitted that this Court had already in earlier petitions directed that
compensation be paid with interest from the date of possession however
the Land Acquisition Officer did not grant such interest while passing
the awards and the Reference Courts too failed to award interest for the
period between 1978 till 2010 which goes against the mandate of
Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which provides for
compensation along with interest to be paid till payment is made from
date of possession. Thus, the counsel prayed for a grant of interest for
the entire intervening period from the date of possession till the date of
payment, along with full statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A),
23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
13. Learned counsel for appellants/landowners in support of the
submission placed reliance on Apex Court Judgment in Balwan Singh
vs. Land Acquisition Collector reported in 2016 (13) SCC 412; Ratti
Ram vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2016 SC 1120. He also relied
on the decision of this court in State of M.P. vs. Garud Chaturvedi
reported in 1996 MPLJ 1064; State of M.P. vs. Shobha Bai Singh
reported in ILR 2009 MP 1603) and the decision of Himachal Pradesh
High Court in Land Acquisition Collector vs. Surjit Singh reported in
2018 AIR CC 2819 (HP).
14. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
Respondents/State refuted that the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act cannot be invoked retrospectively to claim interest. It is further
submitted that the award passed by the land acquisition officer, Shajapur
in 2010 was done strictly following the directions of this court in earlier
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-8- FA-741-2018
petitions and according to prevailing guideline rates. Learned
government advocate submitted that the reference court had erred in
enhancing the compensation against which the state had filed appeals
separately challenging the same and prayed for dismissal of the appeal
of landowners.
Submissions in State's Appeals
(F.A. 1672/2019 and F.A.1673/2019)
15. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Appellants/State
in F.A. Nos. 1672/2019 and 1673/2019 submitted that the Reference
Court committed an error in enhancing compensation by treating the
land as irrigated without any cogent documentary evidence such as
khasra entries, water tax receipts etc... Counsel further submitted that
the Reference Court acted in mechanical manner and erroneously relied
on provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959,
particularly Section 165(7), to infer irrigation, which is not a
determinative factor under the Land Acquisition Act and thus prayed for
setting aside of the reference court judgment which had enhanced the
compensation.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents/landowners in the State
appeals submitted that the appeals were filed by the State after a
significant delay. He further submitted that the findings of the reference
Court are based on evidence on record including oral testimony
justifying the classification as irrigated. He further submitted that the
Reference Court had properly exercised its discretion in view of the
resultant loss to the landowners and thus prayed for the dismissal of
state appeals.
17. So far as the first appeals filed by the land owners are concerned,
appellants therein are mainly aggrieved by non-grant of interest from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-9- FA-741-2018
date of dispossession. Admittedly, these lands belonging to them were
taken by the Government for the construction of the road without
acquisition and compensation. They approached this Court by way of a
writ petition complaining about acquisition and compensation as per
law. Thereafter, the Government issued notifications under the Land
Acquisition Act for the purpose of acquiring their lands. Therefore,
though the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was issued later on, they were dispossessed much before that
hence, they are entitled to interest from the date of dispossession. This
Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Garud Chaturvedi and
others, 1996 MPLJ 1064, Land Acquisition Collector V/s Surjit Singh,
2018 AIR CC 2819 (HP) and State of M.P. and others V/s Shobha Bai
Singh and others, ILR 2009 MP 1603 held that interest on
compensation is liable to be paid from the date of dispossession not
from the date of notification.
18. In view of the above, First Appeal Nos.741 of 2018, 742 of 2018
and 783 of 2018 filed by the land owners are allowed, and the impugned
award is modified accordingly. The respondents are directed to
recalculate the additional amount of interest from the date of possession
till the date of notification and pay the same to the appellants within 90
days from today.
19. So far as the two appeals filed by the State Government are
concerned, the total valuation of the appeal is near about one-two lakhs
only. For such a small amount, the State Government ought not to have
approached this Court by filing an appeal. If these first appeals are
admitted today, then they will come for hearing after 10 years, by that
time State will not take interest in these appeals considering the value of
the money at that time. The reference Court has considered the sale
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8988
-10- FA-741-2018
deeds produced by the land owners as well as the guidelines issued by
the Deputy Registrar of the relevant year while enhancing the amount of
compensation, I do not find any perversity in it.
20. After considering all the evidence came on record, an amount of
Rs.1,11,131/- for area 0.387 hectare of land has been awarded as an
additional compensation in First Appeal No.1672/2019. Likewise, in
another First Appeal No.1673/2019, Rs.3,69,001/- for area 0.073 hectare
of land has been awarded as an additional compensation therefore, I am
not inclined to interfere with the award. Accordingly, First Appeal
Nos.1672 of 2019 and 1673 of 2019 filed by the State Government stand
dismissed.
Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the record of all the
aforesaid connected appeals.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
