Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dhappansingh (Dead) S/O Devi Prasad ... on 2 May, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 FA-2094-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 2094 of 2023
(THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs DHAPPANSINGH (DEAD) S/O DEVI PRASAD KIRAR
THROPUGH HIS LRS SMT. SHYAMA BAI AND OTHERS )
Dated : 02-05-2025
Shri Vijay Pandey and Shri Aditya Choubey - Government
Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain - Advocate for the respondents.
This appeal is filed by the State against the order dated 27/06/2023
passed by the Reference Court in MJC No.49 of 2023 (State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Dhappansingh (dead) through LRs).
On perusal of the record it is seen that the Land Acquisition
Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.3,48,258/- as per Para-2 of the
impugned award and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties,
the amount was enhanced to Rs.32,00,000/-per hectare along with other
connected relief as per para-32 & 33 of the award. Hence, the present
appeal before this Court.
The appeal is filed along with I.A.No.16329 of 2023, an
application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 33 days.
It is mentioned in the application that after the order dated
27/06/2023 permission was obtained on 27/09/2023 and OIC was
appointed on the same day and filed application for certified copy of the
order. But no proof to show that when the application for certified copy
was filed is attached. Thereafter, permission of department was obtained
2 FA-2094-2023
but permission of department is also not attached.
On perusal of the record, it is seen that in the Reference Court that
Pawan Kumar S/o Thappan Singh (Applicant Witness No.1) and Y. P.
Patle (Applicant Witness No. 2), Registration Clerk, Office off Sub-
Registrar, Seoni made statements. As per order sheet dated 21/06/2023,
the State Government did not want to lead any evidence. Relying on the
statements of the witnesses, the amount has been enhanced looking to
the guidelines.
Learned counsel for the State submits that in the case of Esha
Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, the delay of 7 years has been
condoned.
The said judgment is not regarding the Land Acquisition matter
and as seen from perusal of Para-33 of the judgment, the delay condoned
by the Hon'ble Division Bench was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and direction was given to learned Single Judge is directed to
dispose of the writ petition as soon as possible, therefore this case does
not help the appellant/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant/State also relied on the judgment
o f G. Ramegowda, Major and others vs. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142, wherein the High Court had
condoned the delay of about one year but the Hon'ble Supreme Court
refused to interfere in the order stating that it cannot be said that
3 FA-2094-2023
discretion of the High Court was improperly exercised. This judgment
relates to old Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and rely in
order dated 30/05/2024 passed in First Appeal No.414 of 2013
(Executive Engineer & others vs. Parma Gond & others), wherein the
delay of 91 days was not condoned and consequently, the appeal was
also dismissed.
The matter before this Court is under the provision of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as 'the
Act'). The Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act specifies that any challenge to
an Award granting compensation has to be made within 60 days of the
date of the Award before the High Court . An extension of an additional
60 days may be granted if there are reasonable grounds.
The present appeal is filed on 10/10/2023 against the order dated
27/06/2023 i.e. within 120 days.
It is seen that reasons have been assigned in the application for
condonation of delay which cannot be said to frivolous simply for not
filing the documents of permission, as this fact can be taken judicial note
of that for filing an appeal permission of competent authority is required.
Specially, when delay is of 33 days and regarding the order of this Court
in First Appeal No.414 of 2023 dated 30/05/2024, the delay in that case
was 91 days and even otherwise each case has its own facts and this is
4 FA-2094-2023
not strait jacket formula, therefore every judgment is not an order in rem
but can be said to be an order in personam in the facts of the case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court is also seized the matter of limitation
under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Reference
can be made to Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.215-216/2023 (The
Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. M/S S.
V. Global Mill Limited) dated 28/01/2025, which is reproduced below
:-
"We have already passed an order to club all the
similar matters wherein the same question of law
has been raised. The issue is with respect to the
period of limitation which is to be applied in the
teeth of the proviso to Section 74 of the new Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
'the New Act') in juxtaposition to Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Old Act').
In other words, for an acquisition to be made
under the old Act, the provision of the new Act
would be applicable with specific reference to the
period of limitation prescribed thereunder. The
incidental issue is on the application of Section 5 of
the Limitation Act.
The letter of the Central Government dated
16.10.2015 also requires a definite interpretation.
Additionally, Section 24(1)(a) of the New Act also
requires consideration. As the said issues would
involve a substantial implication on revenue, we
would like to have the assistance of learned
Attorney General for India or learned Additional
Solicitor General of India (ASG).
5 FA-2094-2023
Issue notice to the offices of the learned Attorney
General and the learned ASG.
The Registry is directed to furnish copies of the
petitions to both the learned Attorney General and
learned ASG.
Learned counsel appearing for both parties are
directed to serve papers to the office of the learned
and Attorney General and learned ASG, after duly
informing them of the order passed by us today.
List on 25.02.2025.
In the meantime, pleadings are to be completed."
(Emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid, the delay of 33 days in filing the present
appeal is condoned. I.A.No.16329 of 2023 is allowed.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
List the matter for final hearing after ensuing summer vacation.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
mc
