[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ratiya Through Lrs Awadhbihari Dwivedi on 15 December, 2025
1
F.A. No.260/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
FIRST APPEAL No. 260 of 2022
State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs.
Ratiya Through LRS Awadhbihari Dwivedi
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Choubey - Government Advocate for appellant/State.
Shri Satya Prakash Mishra - Advocate for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 07/10/2025
Delivered on: 15/12/2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties,
appeal is heard finally at motion stage.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/State being aggrieved
by the award dated 19.02.2021 passed by learned 2nd Additional District
Judge, Panna in M.J.C. No.05/2017.
3. Government Advocate appearing for appellant/State submitted that the
land belonging to the respondent/plaintiff bearing Khasra No.18 and 22
ad-measuring 0.950 hectare, 0.800 hectare respectively, the total area
1.750 hectare situated at Village Turkitaal, P.H. No.44, Rajaswa
Nirikshak Mandal Malhan, Tehsil Gunnor, District Panna. The cost of the
land acquired was Rs.4,80,000/- per hectare. Total amounting to
Rs.8,40,000/- along with 100% Solatium of Rs.8,40,000. Interest on the
award granted @12% per annum comes to Rs.2,01,600/-, thereafter,
@15% per annum from taking possession till one year, which was total
Rs.8,40,000+8,40,000+2,01,600 = Rs.18,81,600/-. Payment made
₹9,36,600 as awarded by the Land Acquisition, Officer.
4. The said award has been challenged on two grounds. Firstly, the solatium
had to be given @30% as per the old acquisition act under which Section
4. Notification was issued in the year 2012, therefore, it is a contention of
the appellant that the solatium calculated @100% under the Right to fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as "The Act,2013") was
erroneous and incorrect. The second Ground of challenge is that the
Reference Court has considered the lands acquired as irrigated, whereas,
the said land were non-irrigated. In these circumstances, this appeal may
be allowed and impugned award dated 19.02.201 be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
order passed by the learned Reference Court does not require any
interference as the same has been passed per law. As regards the solatium
being granted @100%, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
even the section 4 notification was under the old Act, the award when it
was passed in 2014, the old Act had seized to exist, and therefore, the
solatium was rightly passed under the relevant provisions of the Act,
2013. It is also appropriate to mention here that on perusal of the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it appears that he followed the
the Act, 2013, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly granted the
solatium @100%. As regards the question of the lands being non-
irrigated, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of
this court to the record of the learned Court below where Khasra entry
pertaining to the year 2010-2015 & 2012-2017, which is a document of
the appellants itself, shows that the land in question were all irrigated
lands.
6. Heard the counsel for the parties.
7. The main objection raised by the appellant in the appeal is that the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Revenue and Land Acquisition Officer, Gunnor
determined the compensation by considering the acquired land as non-
irrigated, but the Reference Court erred by treating it as irrigated land
and determining the compensation accordingly, since the acquired land is
non-irrigated.
8. The above argument has been considered and the records have been
examined. Upon examination of the records, it is evident that by the
order dated 28/8/2014 passed in Case No. 26 A-82/12-13 by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Revenue and Land Acquisition Officer, Gunnor, the
compensation was determined by considering the respondent's acquired
land as non-irrigated. Additionally, according to the revenue records
pertaining to the acquired land, no compensation was provided for four
mango trees, other fruit-bearing trees, 200 teak trees, and four bamboo
trees which had been submerged, based on guidelines and market value.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue had conducted an inquiry and spot
inspection of the acquired land, and the Revenue Inspector, Tehsildar,
and Sub-Divisional Officer, Gunnor submitted report that the acquired
land is irrigated and has 200 teak trees, four mango trees, four bamboo
trees, a well, and a house on it. The inquiry report i.e. Exhibit-P/8 was
prepared in compliance with the letter No. 326/Land Acquisition/2016
Panna dated 14.03.2016 from the Office of the Collector (Land
Acquisition Branch), District Panna. The order dated 11/9/2015 passed
by the High Court, Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.15311/2015 (Smt. Ratiya
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and the order dated 26/12/2015 issued by
the Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal Camp, Panna. Pursuant to these
directions, the Tehsildar, Patwari, Executive Engineer, Water Resources
Department, and the Sub-Divisional Officer jointly conducted an on-site
inspection of land parcel No.18 and 22, total area 3.47 hectares, situated
in village Turkitaal. During the site inspection, a permanent (pucca) well
was found on the acquired land. It was observed that the landholder, Smt.
Ratiya Bai used this well for irrigating the acquired land. At the time of
inspection, a wheat crop was sown on the land, and since wheat is
categorized as an irrigated crop, the acquired land was accordingly
classified as irrigated. Based on this inspection report, the Tehsildar,
Gunnor, submitted a report marked as Exhibit P-7 to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Revenue, Gunnor. The khasra records i.e. Exhibit-P/5 and P/6 are
certified copies for the years 2010-2015 and 2012-2017 respectively
also record the acquired lands as irrigated. The remarks column (kaifiyat)
in the khasra further contains details regarding the well and trees present
on the land. Despite the above facts, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue
and Land Acquisition Officer, Gunnor, District Panna, arbitrarily
determined the compensation by treating the acquired land as non-
irrigated instead of irrigated. Furthermore, while determining the
compensation, no consideration was given to the well, trees, and house
located on the acquired land.
9. In such circumstances, the compensation determined by the Reference
Court (Second Additional District Judge), Panna, after considering all the
above facts is in accordance with the law and no error is found in it.
10. Accordingly, there is no substance in this appeal and the appeal is failed
and hereby dismissed.
11. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
sp/-
SUNIL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
2.5.4.20=3ad456309c8cfa67fdf9acdac6949b
KUMAR
bc6ea3342f02b1af1bdaf3424a04c11d99,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JABALPUR,CID - 7049995,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
PATEL
serialNumber=5011b37a3dd5e32019f501f1
0e878d2f118732491b5f40bdc9923237d954
365b, cn=SUNIL KUMAR PATEL
Date: 2025.12.15 16:47:40 +05'30'
