Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahadev vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11485
1 FA-1685-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 1685 of 2019
MAHADEV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondents/State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 1687 of 2019
MUKESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondents/State.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1703 of 2019
NARAYAN S/O SHANKAR THROUGH LRS MAHADEV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
FIRST APPEAL No. 99 of 2020
PARASRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH PATIL
Signing time: 5/2/2025
10:20:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11485
2 FA-1685-2019
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Considered the applications filed by the appellants under Section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeals.
For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and
delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
1. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that all
these cases filed by the appellants are covered by the order dated 30.11.2017
passed by this Court in F.A.No.1314/2014 (Devdutt Vs. State of M.P.and
another), which reads thus :-
"4. In the present case, no material was filed before the Reference
Court regarding the percentage of deduction nor respondents have
pointed out that out of total acquired land, how much land will be
wasted, when they construct the canal. In absence of any evidence,
the Reference Court committed an error in deducting 65% towards
development charges.
5. Ram Singh Meena (PW-1), Land Acquisition & Settlement
Officer, Manawar, District Dhar in para-2 of his statement has
deposed that in respect of area acquired for Sakalda Command, the
compensation for irrigated and un-irrigated land was fixed @
Rs.2,78,081/- per hectare and Rs.1,59,375/- per hectare
respectively. He in para-3 of his cross-examination has very
categorically admitted that Sakalda Command area is 20 kilomters
from Gyaspurkhedi.
6. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also in absence of any
material, I relying on para-16 of the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead)
by LRs. & others (supra) direct the respondents to deduct 1/3rd
towards development charges. The "deduction for development"
consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area
required to be utilized for development works and the second is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11485
3 FA-1685-2019
the cost of the development work. Therefore the deduction for the
'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a
small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of
undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with
reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private lay
out or an industrial layout.
7. In the present case the land has been acquired for construction
of Omkareshwar Canal. So the amount of expenses that could be
incurred in developing the area for construction of canal also
varies. Much more is required to be done for development
purposes. No planned development is required, no internal roads,
drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines is required to be
developed. For these reasons the cost of maximum 1/3rd. The
deduction of 65% towards development would be by the learned
Reference Court is on higher side. The reference court reduced the
amount of compensation by mechanically applying the formula of
deduction of 65%, without considering the fact that land in
question was acquired for construction of canal.
8. On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also in absence of any
material, I in the light of para 16 of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid
Mulla (Dead) by LRs. & others v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer and others (supra), direct the respondents to deduct 1/3rd
towards development charges.
9. For these reasons, the impugned judgment is partly set aside.
First Appeal No.1314/2014 is allowed in part to the extent that
1/3rd would be deducted towards development charges. The
respondents shall assess the compensation accordingly and pay the
amount along with other statutory benefits. The respondents are
also directed to pay the difference / balance amount to the
appellants - claimants with all statutory benefits of interest within
three months from today. No costs."
2. In view of the aforesaid, this bunch of first appeals is disposed of
with costs on the same terms and the aforesaid decision of this Court dated
30.11.2017 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1314/2014 Devdutt s/o
Laxman Mandloi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another shall apply
mutatis mutandiss in this bunch of first appeals also subject to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal
in this matter is filed by either party. Original order be retained in First
Appeal No.1685/2019 and a copy thereof be retained in connected cases.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11485
4 FA-1685-2019
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
patil
