Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imrat Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
1 FA-815-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 815 of 2013
IMRAT SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 330 of 2014
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
IMRAT SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Deepak Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
These appeals were finally heard and reserved for orders on
07/01/2025.
2. Both the appeals have been filed being aggrieved by the award dated
02/08/2013 passed in MJC No.03/2012 by the First Additional District
Judge, Multai District Betul whereby reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, the learned Court has enhanced the compensation for
acquired land in Land Acquisition Case No.8-A/82/2007-08 vide award
dated 10/05/2010 and has allowed the reference and enhanced the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
2 FA-815-2013
compensation to be paid to Imrat Singh from Rs.6,83,670/- to Rs.10,20,515/.
3. The appellant Imrat Singh has filed First Appeal No.815 of 2013 under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation by
Rs.1,50,000/- paid Court fees of Rs.15,000/- on the ground that less
compensation has been awarded whereas the State has filed First Appeal
No.330 of 2014 for reduction of compensation of Rs.4,02,514/- enhanced by
Reference Court on the ground that excessive compensation has been
enhanced ignoring the factual and legal situation.
4. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant Imrat Singh
submitted that there was discrepancy in calculation regarding the number,
length and width of the fruits bearing and other trees. Proper valuation of
land has not been done. Compensation is on lower side ignoring the market
value, therefore, compensation to be increased.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that the learned
reference Court has ignored instruction issued by State Government dated
29/03/2010 whereby the acquired land should have been valued on the basis
of guidelines of the Collector or sale deed whichever is higher. However,
the instructions dated 29/03/2010 were not applicable because that would
have only prospective effect and not retrospective effect. In the circular, it is
clearly stated that it would not be applicable for the land acquired prior to
29/03/2010. The land of the applicant - Imrat Singh was acquired in the year
2008 as per notification under Section 4(1) dated 15/08/2008.
6. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the value of trees existing on
the acquired land on the basis of report submitted by Forest Department as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
3 FA-815-2013
well as Horticulture Department which are the department having expertise
to determine the value of fruits bearing and non-fruit bearing trees and that
could not have been ignored.
7. The Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation by counting the
trees in an appropriate manner which was later-on verified by the Forest
Department and Horticulture Department. There was no foundation available
to bring the magic figure of 114 by the trial Court to grant compensation
saying that it was not 88 but 114 trees. Rate of interest has been wrongly
enhanced by the trial court. Accordingly, State seeks reduction of the
compensation enhanced by reference Court.
8. Learned trial Court has framed the following issues and findings in
respect thereof reads as under :-
वाद िन कष
''आवेदक अिधिनणय क
या भू-अजन अिधकार मुलताई ारा आवेदक को े षत सूचना प दनांक
कं डका . 25 के अनुसार कुल
25.04.2009 के काश म आवेदक ारा भू-अजन अिधकार के सम तुत
1 आप दनांक 12.05.2009 म व णत वृ , कुॅआ तथा प थर क गाडवाल का 114 वृ तथा कुॅआ का
मुआवजा ा करने का
मुआवजा ा करने का आवेदक अिधकार है ?
अिधकार है ।''
'' मा णत है ।''
या भू-अजन अिधकार मुलताई ने आवेदक क अिध हण क गई भूिम,
2 ''आवेदक अिधिनणय क
वृ , कुॅआ आ द के संबंध म कम मू यांकन िनधा रत करते हुये ु टपूण
कं डका . 25, 26, 33 एवं 39
अवाड पा रत कया है ? य द हॉ, तो भाव ?
के अनुसार मुआवजा ा करने
का अिधकार है ।''
सहायता एवं यय ? ''अिधिनणय क कं डका .
41 के अनुसार ।''
9. Before the trial Court while applicant produced witness No.1 Imrat
Singh (AW-1), Photographer Rajesh (AW-2), neighbouring farmer
Moolchand (AW-3), adjacent farmer Bhabhichand (AW-4), Sahablal (AW-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
4 FA-815-2013
5), Sheikh Firoz (AW-6) and Assistant Grade-III, Sub-Registrar Office,
Multai - Ramesh Suryawanshi (AW-7) and produced documents from
Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/34 whereas non-applicant State has examined the witness
Atmaram, sub-Engineer Irrigation Department (NA.W.-1) and produced
DW-1 to DW-13.
10. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
11. On perusal of the record it is seen that learned reference Court has
decided and allowed the reference with the following orders as per Para-41
of the award.
"(1) आवेदक दश पी-4 क आप म व णत वृ म से 45 सेमी से अिधक मोटाई (प रिध) के इमारती
लकड़ के साज के 2 वृ का 10,000/- पये ित वृ क दर से, एक अचार, तीन िमलावा, छ: आम, चार बेर, बारह
महुआ व पांच तद ू के इस कार कुल 31 फलदार वृ का 5000/- पये ित वृ क दर से, 51 िमि त वृ का
2,500/- पये ितवृ क दर से एवं अ य 30 वृ ज ह क 45 से.मी. से कम प रिध के होना पाया गया है का
1,000/- पये ितवृ क दर से मुआवजा ा करने का अिधकार है ।
(2) आवेदक कुंआ के संबंध म भू अजन अिधकार ारा िनधा रत बाजार मू य क रािश का डे ढ़ गुना
मुआवजा ा करने का अिधकार है ।
(3) आवेदक भूिम के मूआवजे के प म अिसंिचत भूिम का .1,46,000/- ित हे टे यर तथा िसंिचत भूिम
का . 2,92,000/- ित हे टे यर क दर से मुआवजा ा करने का अिधकार है ।
(4) आवेदक वृ , कुंआ एवं भूिम के उ मुआवजे पर अिधिनयम क धारा 23(1ए) के अंतगत अिधिनयम
क धारा 4 (1ए) क अिधसूचना काशन क दनांक 15.8.2008 से क जा ाि अथवा मुआवजा िमलने क दनांक
जो भी पहले हो तक बारह ितशत वा षक संग णत रािश एवं अिधिनयम क धारा 23(2) के अंतगत तीस ितशत
अित र तोषण रािश (Solatium) ा करने का अिधकार हैै ।
(5) भू अजन अिधकार ारा आवेदक को पूव म संदाय क गई रािश का समायोजन करने के प ात ्
अनावेदकगण आवेदक को यायालय ारा विधत स पूण रािश पर अिधिनयम क धारा 28 के अंतगत क जा ा
होने अथवा मुआवजा िमलने क दनांक जो भी पहले हो, से एक वष क समाि तक 9% वा षक क दर से याज
तथा एक वष क अविध समा होने क दनांक से मुआवजा के भुगतान क दनांक तक 15% वा षक याज संदाय
करगे।"
12. On perusal of the record, it is seen that appellant - Imrat Singh in
the memo of appeal has not given any specific and substantial ground for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
5 FA-815-2013
enhancement of compensation in Para-11 of the memo of appeal but appeal
is only in general terms..
13. In considered view of this Court, ground has to be specifically raised in
memo of appeal so that both the courts and the opposite party get a chance
to know the grounds clearly and opposite party gets a chance to challenge
the grounds and if the grounds are not specifically raised in the memo of
appeal, then it would be a futile exercise to raise the grounds for the first time
by way of oral or written arguments as oral and written arguments are just an
exposition of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. Even otherwise, on
considering the pleadings of both the parties and oral and documentary
evidence on record, this Court is of the view that learned labour Court has
considered each and every grounds including the compensation for trees,
well and land value along with pleadings and evidence and enhancement of
compensation by reference Court is just and proper and no grounds are there
to enhance the compensation further. In view of the aforesaid, appeal
preferred by the appellant Imrat Singh is hereby dismissed having no merits
for enhancement of compensation.
14. Regarding the appeal preferred by the State, it is seen that
although multiple grounds have been raised in the memo of appeal but at the
time of arguments on 07/01/2025, only two grounds were pressed by Shri
Mukund Agrawal, learned counsel for the State. Firstly, how the figure of 88
trees got converted into the figure of 144 trees but how number of trees total
has been arrived for enhancement of compensation has been mentioned in
the impugned judgment by the reference Court, specifically in Para 9 to 17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
6 FA-815-2013
and 19 to 25. The other ground was that new guidelines were taken into
consideration by the Reference Court and circular dated 29/03/2010 could
not have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court. This ground
is misconceived as even the Land Acquisition Officer has taken the Circular
dated 29/03/2010 for consideration while calculating the compensation as
reflected from Para-5 of the award of Land Acquisition Officer dated
10/05/2010 and as mentioned by the learned Reference Court in paras 27 to
15. It is the considered view of this Court that when the appellate Court
finds that the judgment of the reference Court is correct on facts and law on
the basis of pleadings and evidence then it it is not required to give detailed
reasonings just for the sake of repetition but detailed reasonings are required
to be given where appellate Court reverses the findings of the reference
court.
16. As correctly recorded by the reference Court in MJC No.03/2012 award
dated 02/08/2013, the Officers of the State i.e. Forest Department, Irrigation
Department and Horticulture Department did not appear to give evidence on
behalf of the department but one witness of Irrigation Department Atmaram,
Sub-Engineer (NA.W.-1) appeared and has got recorded his statement as per
para-13 of the award. He stated that he cannot say whether any objection was
filed before the SDO or not and if filed, what action was taken therein. He
again stated that he does not know when calculation sheet (Ex.D/3) was
made by the Forest Department and whether information was given to any
person before carrying out the survey. He further stated that trees were not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
7 FA-815-2013
measured before him. He does not have record of the survey. He also
submitted that he was just present on the spot but he cannot say whether
Patwari was there or not. In fact, he has admitted in cross-examination that
in submerged area, there were six mangoes trees of claimant but he has been
given compensation only for four trees. He has therefore deposed against the
department. Therefore, the statement of Atmaram (NA.W.-1) on behalf of
respondent/appellant State is of no value or help in this appeal. Atmaram,
Sub-Engineer of Irrigation Department has submitted that he does not know
the basis of value of the trees. The reference Court has also given its
reasoning which cannot be faulted looking to the award and learned
reference Court has given a detailed reasoning how the Well has been
valued, in Paras- 18 and 26 of the reference Court order and has mentioned
that in Ex.D/5, what was the depth and measurement of the Well has not
been mentioned, therefore Court on the basis of pleadings and evidence has
enhanced the compensation of the Well also by proper reasoning. The value
of the land is also properly calculated and determined in Paras 27 to 33 of the
award..
17. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the State also fails and
is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the order of the reference Court is hereby
affirmed.
18. Accordingly, both the appeal are hereby dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14841
8 FA-815-2013
mc
