Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar vs Water Resource Department on 13 May, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
1 FA-364-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
FIRST APPEAL No. 364 of 2015
MANGILAL AND OTHERS
Versus
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.A. Katkani - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Aniruddha Malpani - Government Advocate for the State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 366 of 2015
RAMESHWAR
Versus
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 200 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SUKHRAM
FIRST APPEAL No. 201 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
LUNA
FIRST APPEAL No. 203 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
NATHA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
2 FA-364-2015
FIRST APPEAL No. 205 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NANURAM
FIRST APPEAL No. 207 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KALIBAI
FIRST APPEAL No. 208 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RUGNATH
FIRST APPEAL No. 212 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMESHWAR
FIRST APPEAL No. 214 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RAMA
FIRST APPEAL No. 219 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RADU
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
3 FA-364-2015
FIRST APPEAL No. 220 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MANGILAL
FIRST APPEAL No. 223 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DEWA
FIRST APPEAL No. 225 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SITABAI
FIRST APPEAL No. 227 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DEWA
FIRST APPEAL No. 228 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
GIRDHARI
FIRST APPEAL No. 232 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECEASED NIHALSINGH THROUGH LRS. BHURAKUNWAR AND
OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
4 FA-364-2015
FIRST APPEAL No. 233 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
AMRIYA
FIRST APPEAL No. 234 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANGILAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 235 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECEASED BEEJAL THROUGH LRS. NANUBAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 236 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECED. KANIRAM THRU. LRS. GIRDHARI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 239 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
CHAINRAM AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 241 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECEASED KANIRAM THROUGH LRS. GIRDHARI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 242 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
5 FA-364-2015
DHANNALAL
FIRST APPEAL No. 243 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BHERULAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 244 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
DECEASED PREMCHAND THROUGH LRS BHULIBAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 245 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMLAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 341 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHAMBHU SINGH
FIRST APPEAL No. 342 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJENDRASINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 343 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECED. KANIRAM THRU. LRS. LEELABAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 345 of 2016
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
6 FA-364-2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECD.MANGU THRU.LRS.AMBARAM AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 346 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHANKARLAL @ SHANKAR SINGH
FIRST APPEAL No. 348 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECD.SUKHRAM THRU.LRS.BADRILAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 349 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BADRILAL
FIRST APPEAL No. 350 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECD.VARDILAL THRU.LRS.BRIJMOHAN AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 351 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECED. NATHA THRU. LRS. SOHANLAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 352 of 2016
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
7 FA-364-2015
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECED. SITABAI THRU. LRS. RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 355 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECED. MANGU THRU. LRS. AMBARAM AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 356 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DECD.HARIRAM THRU.LRS.NANDRAM AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 542 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MAINA BAI
FIRST APPEAL No. 549 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
TIBU BAI
FIRST APPEAL No. 567 of 2016
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NANDU AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 997 of 2016
TIBUBAI
Versus
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 46 of 2017
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
8 FA-364-2015
RAMLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 165 of 2017
AMRIYA THRU. POWER OF ATTORNEY MOHANLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 265 of 2017
SITABAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 267 of 2017
CHAINRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1036 of 2017
RAMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 300 of 2018
NANURAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 350 of 2018
DECD.VARDILAL THRU.LRS.BRAJ MOHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1870 of 2018
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 14-May-25
11:44:48 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
9 FA-364-2015
NATHA
Versus
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 244 of 2019
DECEASED KANIRAM THROUGH LRS. LEELABAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 339 of 2019
RUGNATH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 565 of 2019
DEVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1077 of 2022
BADRILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Reserved on :- 26.03.2025
Pronounced on :- 13.05.2025
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Since these appeals raise common questions of facts and law and arise
out of the same land acquisition proceeding, they have been heard together
and are being decided by a common order. Facts are being taken from First
Appeal No.364 of 2015.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
10 FA-364-2015
02. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 has been preferred by the claimants/appellants being aggrieved by the
award dated 02.12.2014 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.75/2011 by
the Third Additional District Judge, Ratlam whereby their reference
application has been partly allowed and they have been held entitled for
award of a sum of Rs.11,55,000/- to them by way of compensation for their
acquired land, Rs.33,020/- for the borewell, Rs.11,643/- for three fruit
bearing trees and Rs.20,84,415/- for non-fruit bearing trees along with the
statutory benefits.
03. The facts necessary for decision in short are that the land of the
appellants was acquired for dairy Triveni Tank Development Scheme.
Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on 19.06.2006
followed by notification under Section 6 thereof. Award was passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer on 25.01.2008, which was approved by the
Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain on 01.03.2008. Therein the
compensation payable to the appellants was determined at the rate of
Rs.2,02,462/- per hectare for their irrigated land.
04. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants filed an
application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 before the Collector for
making a reference to the Civil Court. The reference as prayed for was made
and was registered by the Reference Court on 21.08.2009. By the impugned
award, the Reference Court has awarded compensation to the appellants as
aforesaid being aggrieved by which the instant appeal has been preferred by
them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
11 FA-364-2015
05. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the impugned
award passed by the Reference Court submitting that from the evidence
available on record, the appellants had duly proved the market value of the
acquired lands but the same has not been taken into consideration
appropriately. The comparative sale deeds have not been taken into
consideration which are mandatorily required to be considered. The award
had been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of market
value guidelines, which was impermissible. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, the appellants ought to have been awarded higher amount of
compensation. It is hence submitted that the impugned award be suitably
enhanced. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants
on the decision of the Apex Court in Tek Chand Vs. Union of India 1991 (1)
MPWN Note 38, Ramo Bai and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others
2016 (13) SCC 407, Mahamaya General Finance Company Limited Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2014 (15) SCC 290 of this Court in
Narayan Pansare Vs. State of M.P. 1984 MPWN Note 81, Nirmalabai Vs.
State of M.P. 1984 MPWN Note 144, State of M.P. Vs. Km Man Bano and
Others 1977 MPWN 419, Shobharam Vs. Ramati Bai 1994 (2) MP Weekly
note No.204.
06. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
just and fair amount of compensation has been awarded to the appellants.
The amount which has been awarded is already on the higher side. There
were no comparative sale deeds produced by the appellants. In fact
appellants ought to have been awarded compensation on the basis of market
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
12 FA-364-2015
value guidelines but have instead been awarded compensation on the basis of
the sale deeds which were not comparable in nature. It is hence submitted
that the appeals deserve to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the
decision of the Apex Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Vs. Harnand Singh (Dead) through LRs and Others 2024 SCC online SC
1691, order dated 21.03.2023 passed in F.A. No.1060 of 2019 (State of M.P.
and Another Vs. Vishnu Prasad and Others), Union of India Vs. Dyagala
Devamma and Others, 2018 (8) SCC 485, Haridwar Development Authority
Vs. Raghubir Singh and Others 2010 (11) SCC 581.
07. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
08. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, 1894 was issued on
19.06.2006. It is this date which would be the relevant date for calculation of
the market value of the acquired lands. For proving the market value of the
acquired land, the appellants had produced a sale deed (Exhibit P/2) dated
04.04.1995. The same was however of a period 11 years prior to the date of
acquisition. In that sale deed, it was stated that a house measuring 25 feet x
25 feet is constructed on the land, whereas in the acquired land, no house has
been constructed. The sale deed has hence been rightly refused to be
considered as an exemplar sale deed. In the sale deed (Exhibit P/3) dated
09.11.2001 which is also of a period five years prior to the date of
notification under Section 4, the land was abutting Abadi land. The same
hence also could not have been taken to be an exemplar sale deed. The
Reference Court has in any case relied upon the said sale deed to hold that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
13 FA-364-2015
the per hectare market value of the acquired land would be Rs.3,00,000/-.
09. There is no evidence adduced by the appellants that the lands of
the exemplar sale deed and the acquired lands were similarly situated. The
lands in question have been acquired for construction of a Talab. The land
abutting Abadi area and the land which is situated inside the village where
the tank is being constructed would have considerable difference in their
market value. It is not the case of the appellants that their lands are situated
near any road or Abadi. The Reference Court has considered the market
value at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare for unirrigated land which was the nature
of the land in the sale deeds of the exemplar land. Since the Land Acquisition
Officer had calculated the market value of irrigated land to be twice that of
unirrigated land, the market value of acquired land has been taken at
Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare in which there is no infirmity.
10. The only two sale deeds which were produced by the appellants
were of a period eleven and five years prior to the acquisition of their land.
They were not exemplar sale deeds yet the Reference Court has made the
calculation on their basis and has worked out the market value of the
acquired land at the date of its acquisition. The said calculation appears to be
on a higher side. In such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the case
and do not help him in any manner. However, no cross-objection has been
preferred by the State challenging the award passed by the Reference Court
for its reduction, hence the market value as determined by the Reference
Court is not liable to be interfered with.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
14 FA-364-2015
11. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation to the
appellants on the basis of the market value guidelines issued by the Collector
of the District for the purpose of collection of stamp duty by taking it to be a
guiding factor. The said approach was perfectly justified in absence of any
exemplar sale deeds. However, the Reference Court has taken the sale deeds
produced by the appellants to be exemplar sale deeds and has calculated
market value of the acquired land. However, as stated above, no cross-
objection has been preferred by the respondents hence it would not be
necessary to dwell further into this aspect of the matter. At this juncture, it
would be apt to consider the decision by the Division Bench of this Court in
State of M.P. Vs. Surya Kumar 2010 (2) MPHT 68 wherein it was held as
under:-
"So far as first contention of the appellant that the Reference Court ought not
to have affixed the market value as per the order of Collector dated 31-3-
2005 is concerned, we considered the contention of appellant and found that
the aforesaid guidelines in respect of minimum market value was issued by
the Collector under the provisions of M.P. Preparation and Revision of
Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for
short). From the perusal of aforesaid rules it is apparent that under Rule 4
there is provision for constitution of District Valuation Committee who shall
prepare the market value guidelines as per the procedure prescribed under
Rule 6. The aforesaid market value is to be affixed as per the provisions
envisaged under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and these rules have
been framed under Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. When the State
Government on one hand is affixing minimum market value and they charge
stamp duty on a document as per the guidelines issued by the Collector, then
the State Government cannot deprive its liability for the payment of
compensation if the land owner based his claim on the basis of aforesaid
guidelines. The aforesaid guidelines were framed as per the Rules of 2000 and
if the Reference Court relying on the guidelines assessed the compensation,
no fault is found. The Collector being an Authorised Officer of the State has
fixed the aforesaid minimum market value and the State is estopped from
assailing the impugned award on the ground that the valuation fixed by the
Collector as per Annexure P-3 was not correct."
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having
been committed by the Reference Court in fixing the amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12587
15 FA-364-2015
compensation payable to the appellants. The same has not been shown to be
low or inadequate in any manner. No illegality or perversity in the same has
been pointed out. As a result, the impugned award passed by the Reference
Court are hereby affirmed and consequently the appeals are dismissed.
13. Let the original order be placed in F.A. No.364 of 2015 and a
signed copy thereof be kept in all the connected appeals.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
