Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Natthi Singh on 7 October, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
1 FA-616-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 616 of 2020
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NATTHI SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwah, Government Advocate for applicants/State.
Shri Chetan Kanungo, Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This first appeal, under section 96 of CPC read with Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, has been filed against the Award dated 5/10/2019 passed by IX
Additional District Judge Gwalior in MJC No. 200/2018, by which the reference
application filed by the respondents was allowed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the case in hand is duly
covered by a judgment passed by this Court in the case of The State of Madhya
Pradesh and others Vs. Purushottam decided on 10th of July 2025 in F.A. No. 507
of 2021.
3. The counsel for the respondent has also endorsed the said submission.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
5. This court in the case of Purushottam (Supra) has held as under:-
"This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 has been filed against the order/Award dated 21.01.2021
passed by I Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in
MJC (Land Acquisition) No.10/2015 by which reference filed by
respondent has been allowed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that so far as the
ground raised by appellants with regard to the fact as to whether
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
2 FA-616-2020
reference was barred by time or not and whether respondent had
accepted compensation amount without protest or not is
concerned, same has already been decided by this Court by order
dated 23.06.2025 in the case of State of M.P. And Others Vs.
Lokendra Singh in FA. No.264/2021 , therefore, for the aforesaid
grounds are duly covered by order passed by this Court in the
case of Lokendra Singh (supra). However, it is submitted by
counsel for appellants that Reference Court should not have
awarded compensation amount in excess of what was laid down
by Collector in Collector guidelines.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that so
far as the Collector guidelines issued by Collector are concerned,
it is for the purposes of collection of stamp duty. It is submitted
that it is true that Collector guidelines can be a one of the
guiding factors, but for ascertaining the market value of land,
Court is required to consider the registered sale deeds of
adjoining/surrounding lands. Thus, it is submitted that Collector
guidelines cannot be the solitary guideline for ascertaining the
market value.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. So far as the question as to whether Reference was barred by
time and whether respondent had accepted compensation
amount without any protest or not is concerned, this Court in the
case of Lokendra Singh (supra) has held as under:
"1. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") , has been
filed against the order/Award dated 13.07.2020
passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First
Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in
Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 by which
reference filed by respondent has been allowed.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that against
the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, a
reference was made under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act. By impugned award, the Trial Court
has enhanced the compensation amount. It was
informed by Counsel for the parties, that being
dissatisfied by the award passed by the Reference
Court, the Land owners have also filed First Appeal.
3. As a general practice, all the appeals arising out of
one judgment and decree or award should be heard
analogously, but in the present case, it was submitted
by Counsel for appellant, that the State has not
questioned the quantum of compensation and the
appeal is being pressed only on two grounds i.e., that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
3 FA-616-2020
the reference was barred by time and since, the
respondent/land owner had received the
compensation amount therefore, the reference is not
maintainable.
4. In view of the grounds of attack, this Court is of
the considered opinion, that large number of appeals
are pending but since, the question for consideration
in both the appeals, i.e., by the State and the land
owners, are not overlapping each other and the appeal
filed by the State can be decided without adversely
effecting the ground regarding quantum of
compensation which is the subject matter of appeal
filed by land owner, therefore, the appeal filed by the
State is being decided.
5. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal,
in short, are that a notification was issued for
acquisition of 2.52 hectares of land for construction
of canal and accordingly in Land Acquisition Case
Number 21/2012-13/A-82, Award dated 17/9/2013
was passed and Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation @ ₹4,30,167 per hectare. Being
aggrieved by the said Award, respondent preferred an
application under Section 18 of the Act on
23.08.2014. The matter was referred by Collector to
District Court for answering the reference. The
Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional
District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind by Award dated
13.07.2020 passed in MJC Number 16 of 2015
allowed the reference and awarded ₹10,50,000/- per
hectare by way of compensation.
6. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the Court
below, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that
reference application was barred by time. It is further
submitted that as the respondent had accepted the
compensation amount without any demur, therefore
he is estopped from filing an application under
Section 18 of the Act and relied upon the judgment
passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Satinder Singh reported in (1995) 3 SCC
330 .
7 . Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by
counsel for respondent. It is submitted that as per the
provisions of Section 18(2) of the Act, the reference
application has to be filed within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of Award in case the land owner was
present. However, if the Award is passed in absence
of land owner, then reference application could have
been filed within a period of 6 weeks from the date of
receipt of notice under Section 12 of the Act or within
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
4 FA-616-2020
a period of 6 months from the date of Award of
Collector, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that
admittedly neither the respondent was present at the
time of passing of Award nor any notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act was given to respondent.
Immediately after the respondent came to know about
the impugned Award, then he gave an application for
supply of certified copy which was supplied on
1.8.2014 and accordingly on 23.08.2014 an
application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act was filed for making the reference. It is
submitted that the words "from the date of the
Collector's award" as mentioned in Section 18(2)(b)
of the Act cannot be given a narrow meaning and it
would also include "from the date of knowledge." It
is further submitted that the respondent has
specifically stated that he had received the
compensation amount under protest. It is submitted
that even if the amount is received without any
protest, still it cannot be inferred that the land owner
was aware of the contents of award and therefore it is
submitted that the acceptance of compensation
amount, whether under protest or, would not estop
the land owner from filing an application under
Section 18 of the Act and relied upon the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Das &Orsvs State Of.U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 545, Vijay
MahadeoraoKubadevs State Of Maharashtra (2019) 2
MPLJ 529 (SC).
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Whether reference was barred by time
9. Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act reads as under
:
18. Reference to Court.--(1) Any person
interested who has not accepted the award may,
by written application to the Collector, require
that the matter be referred by the Collector for
the determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the
amount of the compensation, the persons to
whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on
which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be
made,--
(a ) if the person making it was present or
represented before the Collector at the time
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
5 FA-616-2020
when he made his award, within six weeks from
the date of the Collector's award;
(b ) in other cases, within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector under
Section 12, sub-section (2); or within six
months from the date of the Collector's award,
whichever period shall first expire.
10. Admittedly, the respondent was not present at the
time of passing of award, therefore, Section 18(2)(i)
of Land Acquisition Act, would not apply.
11. Now, the next question for consideration is that
whether any notice was ever given by Collector under
Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act or not?
12. The respondent, in para 3 of his application filed
under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, had
specifically pleaded that no notice under Section
12(2) of Land Acquisition Act was given. The
appellants did not deny this fact in their written
statement. A solitary stand was taken by the
appellants that the respondent was aware of the
award from the date of its pronouncement. The
respondent in his affidavit filed under Order 18 rule 4
CPC had specifically stated that no notice under
Section 12 of Land Acquisition Act was given. The
respondent has examined AwadheshPratap Singh
Yadav who has stated that information regarding
passing of award was given by Kotwar by beat of
drum.
13. First of all, it is made clear that no defence was
taken by the appellants in their written statement, that
any public notice was given to the villagers by
Kotwar by beat of drums. However, the moot
question for consideration is that whether general
notice by beat of drums can be said to be sufficient
compliance of Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act
1894 or not?
14. The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The
Supreme Court in the case of PremjiNathu v. State of
Gujarat, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 250 has held as
under:
15. What needs to be emphasised is that along
with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the
Act, the landowner who is not present or is not
represented before the Collector at the time of
making of award should be supplied with a copy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
6 FA-616-2020
thereof so that he may effectively exercise his
right under Section 18(1) to seek reference to
the court.
16. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land
Acquisition Officer, this Court was called upon
to decide whether the expression "date of
award" is to be interpreted with reference to the
time when the award is signed by the Collector
or from the date the affected party comes to
know about the same and held as under: (AIR
pp. 1503-04, paras 5-6)
"5 . ... Therefore, if the award made by
the Collector is in law no more than an
offer made on behalf of the Government
to the owner of the property then the
making of the award as properly
understood must involve the
communication of the offer to the party
concerned. That is the normal
requirement under the contract law and
its applicability to cases of award made
under the Act cannot be reasonably
excluded. Thus considered the date of the
award cannot be determined solely by
reference to the time when the award is
signed by the Collector or delivered by
him in his office; it must involve the
consideration of the question as to when
it was known to the party concerned
either actually or constructively. If that
be the true position then the literal and
mechanical construction of the words 'the
date of the award' occurring in the
relevant section would not be
appropriate.
6 . There is yet another point which leads
to the same conclusion. If the award is
treated as an administrative decision
taken by the Collector in the matter of the
valuation of the property sought to be
acquired it is clear that the said decision
ultimately affects the rights of the owner
of the property and in that sense, like all
decisions which affect persons, it is
essentially fair and just that the said
decision should be communicated to the
said party. The knowledge of the party
affected by such a decision, either actual
or constructive, is an essential element
which must be satisfied before the
decision can be brought into force. Thus
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
7 FA-616-2020
considered the making of the award
cannot consist merely in the physical act
of writing the award or signing it or even
filing it in the office of the Collector; it
must involve the communication of the
said award to the party concerned either
actually or constructively. If the award is
pronounced in the presence of the party
whose rights are affected by it it can be
said to be made when pronounced. If the
date for the pronouncement of the award
is communicated to the party and it is
accordingly pronounced on the date
previously announced the award is said
to be communicated to the said party
even if the said party is not actually
present on the date of its pronouncement.
Similarly if without notice of the date of
its pronouncement an award is
pronounced and a party is not present the
award can be said to be made when it is
communicated to the party later. The
knowledge of the party affected by the
award, either actual or constructive,
being an essential requirement of fair
play and natural justice the expression
'the date of the award' used in the proviso
must mean the date when the award is
either communicated to the party or is
known by him either actually or
constructively. In our opinion, therefore,
it would be unreasonable to construe the
words 'from the date of the Collector's
award' used in the proviso to Section 18
in a literal or mechanical way."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In State of Punjab v. QaisarJehan Begum,
the principle laid down in Harish Chandra case
was reiterated and it was held: (AIR p. 1607,
para 5)
"5 . ... It seems clear to us that the ratio of
the decision in Harish Chandra case is
that the party affected by the award must
know it, actually or constructively, and
the period of six months will run from the
date of that knowledge. Now, knowledge
of the award does not mean a mere
knowledge of the fact that an award has
been made. The knowledge must relate to
the essential contents of the award. These
contents may be known either actually or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
8 FA-616-2020
constructively. If the award is
communicated to a party under Section
12(2) of the Act, the party must be
obviously fixed with knowledge of the
contents of the award whether he reads it
or not. Similarly when a party is present
in court either personally or through his
representative when the award is made by
the Collector, it must be presumed that he
knows the contents of the award. Having
regard to the scheme of the Act we think
that knowledge of the award must mean
knowledge of the essential contents of the
award."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. this Court
interpreted Section 18 and laid down the
following propositions: (SCC pp. 553-54, para
28)
"(i) If the award is made in the presence
of the person interested (or his authorised
representative), he has to make the
application within six weeks from the
date of the Collector's award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the
presence of the person interested (or his
authorised representative), he has to make
the application seeking reference within
six weeks of the receipt of the notice
from the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his
representative) was not present when the
award is made, and if he does not receive
the notice under Section 12(2) from the
Collector, he has to make the application
within six months of the date on which he
actually or constructively came to know
about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act,
after the expiry of six weeks from the
date of receipt of such notice, he cannot
claim the benefit of the provision for six
months for making the application on the
ground that the date of receipt of notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act was the
date of knowledge of the contents of the
award."
19. The Court in Bhagwan Das then held: (SCC
p. 554, paras 30-31)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
9 FA-616-2020
"30. When a person interested makes an
application for reference seeking the
benefit of six months' period from the
date of knowledge, the initial onus is on
him to prove that he (or his
representative) was not present when the
award was made, that he did not receive
any notice under Section 12(2) of the
Act, and that he did not have the
knowledge of the contents of the award
during a period of six months prior to the
filing the application for reference. This
onus is discharged by asserting these
facts on oath. He is not expected to prove
the negative. Once the initial onus is
discharged by the claimant/person
interested, it is for the Land Acquisition
Collector to establish that the person
interested was present either in person or
through his representative when the
award was made, or that he had received
a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act,
or that he had knowledge of the contents
of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of
the contents of the award can be
established by the Collector by proving
that the person interested had received or
drawn the compensation amount for the
acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings
delivering possession of the acquired
land in pursuance of the acquisition, or
had filed a case challenging the award or
had acknowledged the making of the
award in any document or in statement on
oath or evidence. The person interested,
not being in possession of the acquired
land and the name of the State or its
transferee being entered in the revenue
municipal records coupled with delay,
can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of
any such evidence by the Collector, the
claim of the person interested that he did
not have knowledge earlier will be
accepted, unless there are compelling
circumstances not to do so."
****
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
10 FA-616-2020
21. A careful reading of the averments
contained in Para 2 of the application filed by
the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the
notice issued by the Collector under Section
12(2) was served upon him on 22-2-1985.
Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy
of the award and filed application dated 8-4-
1985 for making a reference to the Court. This
implies that the copy of the award had not been
sent to the appellant along with the notice and
without that he could not have effectively made
an application for seeking reference.
22. On behalf of the State Government, no
evidence was produced before the Reference
Court to show that the copy of the award was
sent to the appellant along with the notice.
Unfortunately, while deciding Issue 3, this
aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference
Court which mechanically concluded that the
application filed on 8-4-1985 was beyond the
time specified in Section 18(2)(b ). The learned
Single Judge of the High Court also committed
serious error by approving the view taken by the
Reference Court, albeit without considering the
fact that the notice issued by the Collector under
Section 12(2) was not accompanied by a copy
of the award which was essential for effective
exercise of right vested in the appellant to seek
reference under Section 18(1).
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
MahadeoraoKubadeVs State of Maharashtra reported
i n (2018) 8 SCC 266 has also relied upon the
judgment passed in the case of PremjiNathu (Supra).
16. Thus, it is clear that no notice under Section 12(2)
of Land Acquisition Act was ever served upon the
respondent and no copy of the award was ever
supplied to the respondent, therefore, a specific
pleading was made by the respondent, that when he
came to know about passing of award, then on 14-
72014, he filed an application for supply of certified
copy and certified copy was supplied on 1-8-2014
and according to the record, the application under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was filed before
the LAO on 23-8-2014 and as per endorsement made
on the application, the Collector directed for taking
action on 22-12-2014.
17. Now the only question for consideration is that
whether application was filed within a period of six
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
11 FA-616-2020
months from the date of the Collector's award or not?
18. The moot question for consideration is that
whether narrow interpretation is 4 to be given to the
words "from the date of the Collector's award or the
date of knowledge of award would also mean from
the date of the Collector's award?
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das
v. State of U.P., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 has
held as under :
25. Invariably, the land-loser is required to
make an application under Section 18 of the Act
to get the market value as compensation. The
land-loser does not get a right to seek reference
to the civil court unless the award is made. This
means that he can make an application seeking
reference only when he knows that an award has
been made.
26. If the words six months from the "date of
the Collector's award" should be literally
interpreted as referring to the date of the award
and not the date of knowledge of the award, it
will lead to unjust and absurd results. For
example, the Collector may choose to make an
award but not to issue any notice under Section
12(2) of the Act, either due to negligence or
oversight or due to any ulterior reasons. Or he
may send a notice but may not bother to ensure
that it is served on the landowner as required
under Section 45 of the Act. If the words "date
of the Collector's award" are literally
interpreted, the effect would be that on the
expiry of six months from the date of award,
even though the claimant had no notice of the
award, he would lose the right to seek a
reference. That will lead to arbitrary and
unreasonable discrimination between those who
are notified of the award and those who are not
notified of the award.
27. Unless the procedure under the Act is fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory, it will run
the risk of being branded as being violative of
Article 14 as also Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India. To avoid such
consequences, the words "date of the
Collector's award" occurring in proviso (b ) to
Section 18 requires to be read as referring to the
date of knowledge of the essential contents of
the award, and not the actual date of the
Collector's award.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
12 FA-616-2020
28. The following position therefore emerges
from the interpretation of the proviso to Section
18 of the Act:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the
person interested (or his authorised
representative), he has to make the application
within six weeks from the date of the
Collector's award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of
the person interested (or his authorised
representative), he has to make the application
seeking reference within six weeks of the
receipt of the notice from the Collector under
Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his
representative) was not present when the award
is made, and if he does not receive the notice
under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has
to make the application within six months of the
date on which he actually or constructively
came to know about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry
of six weeks from the date of receipt of such
notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the
provision for six months for making the
application on the ground that the date of receipt
of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the
date of knowledge of the contents of the award.
29. A person who fails to make an application
for reference within the time prescribed is not
without remedy. It is open to him to make an
application under Section 28-A of the Act, on
the basis of an award of the court in respect of
the other lands covered by the same acquisition
notification, if there is an increase. Be that as it
may.
30. When a person interested makes an
application for reference seeking the benefit of
six months' period from the date of knowledge,
the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his
representative) was not present when the award
was made, that he did not receive any notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did
not have the knowledge of the contents of the
award during a period of six months prior to the
filing the application for reference. This onus is
discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He
is not expected to prove the negative. Once the
initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
13 FA-616-2020
interested, it is for the Land Acquisition
Collector to establish that the person interested
was present either in person or through his
representative when the award was made, or
that he had received a notice under Section
12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of
the contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the
contents of the award can be established by the
Collector by proving that the person interested
had received or drawn the compensation
amount for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering
possession of the acquired land in pursuance of
the acquisition, or had filed a case challenging
the award or had acknowledged the making of
the award in any document or in statement on
oath or evidence. The person interested, not
being in possession of the acquired land and the
name of the State or its transferee being entered
in the revenue municipal records coupled with
delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any
such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the
person interested that he did not have
knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless there
are compelling circumstances not to do so.
20. Thus the words from the date of the Collector's
award would also include from the date of
knowledge.
21. In the present case, it was specifically pleaded by
the respondent, that after getting information of
award, an application was filed on 14-7-2014 for
supply of certified copy which was received on 1-4-
2014 and as per the record, the application under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was filed before
LAO on 23-8-2014 and on 22-12-2014, an
endorsement was made by Collector to take necessary
action. Thus, it is held that the application under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition was filed within six
months from the date of knowledge of impugned
award, therefore, the reference is held to be within
the period of limitation.
Whether the respondent had accepted the
compensation amount without protest?
22. It is submitted by Counsel for appellant, that
since, the respondent had received the compensation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
14 FA-616-2020
amount, therefore, the reference under Section 18 of
Land Acquisition Act was not maintainable.
23. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for
the appellant.
24. The appellants in their written statement did not
claim that the respondent has accepted the
compensation amount without any protest. However,
the respondent in para 10 of his cross-examination
had admitted that the compensation amount was
received under protest. AwadheshPratap Singh
Yadav, who appeared as a departmental witness did
not claim that the compensation amount was paid.
Thus, it is clear that the respondent himself has
admitted that compensation amount was received
under protest. Therefore, now the next question for
consideration is that if the land owner has accepted
the compensation amount under protest, then whether
a reference can be made under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act or not?
25. Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act reads as
under :
31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in
Court.--(1) On making an award under Section 11,
the Collector shall tender payment of the
compensation awarded by him to the persons
interested entitled thereto according to the award, and
shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or
more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-
section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be
no person competent to alienate the land, or if there
be any dispute as to the title to receive the
compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the
Collector shall deposit the amount of the
compensation in the court to which a reference under
Section 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested
may receive such payment under protest as to the
sufficiency of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the
amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled
to make any application under Section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall
affect the liability of any person, who may receive
the whole or any part of any compensation awarded
under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully
entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
15 FA-616-2020
Collector may, with the sanction of 1 [appropriate
Government], instead of awarding a money
compensation in respect of any land, make any
arrangement with a person having a limited interest in
such land, either by the grant of other lands in
exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other
lands held under the same title, or in such other way
as may be equitable having regard to the interests of
the parties concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be
construed to interfere with or limit the power of the
Collector to enter into any arrangement with any
person interested in the land and competent to
contract in respect thereof.
26. Section 31(2) second proviso provides that no
person who has received the amount other than under
protest shall be entitled to make any application under
Section 18. As already pointed out, the respondent, in
para 10 of his cross-examination, that the amount of
compensation was received by him under protest.
The appellant has not controverted the said fact by
producing documents. AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav
who had appeared as a Departmental Witness neither
refuted the said evidence of the respondent, nor filed
any document to show that compensation amount
was received by respondent without any protest.
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhan
v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, reported in
(2015) 15 SCC 343 has held as under :
11. The principal contention urged by the
learned counsel for GDA was that since the
compensation was accepted by the claimants
without any protest, the reference was not
maintainable. In our opinion, this contention is
without any substance for several reasons. In
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab it was held that
since the appellants therein had filed an
application for reference under Section 18 of the
Act, it manifested their intention. Consequently,
the protest against the award of the Collector
was implied notwithstanding the acceptance of
compensation.
12. Similarly, in U.P. State Industrial
Development Corpn. v. RishabhIspat Ltd. it was
held that (SCC p. 252, para 8) the question
whether the compensation offered was accepted
without protest is essentially a question of fact
to be determined on the basis of the evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
16 FA-616-2020
record. On facts, it was held in that decision
that there was nothing to suggest that the
claimants had accepted the compensation
without protest.
13. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned,
although the State/GDA did aver in its written
statement that Chandra Bhan had accepted the
compensation without any protest, no issue was
framed in this regard, and, therefore, there was
no question of any evidence having been led to
show that the claim was accepted without any
protest. That apart, SLAO gave his award on 7-
12-1990 and Chandra Bhan had filed his
objections to the award and sought a reference
within the prescribed time by making an
application under Section 18 of the Act on 11-1-
1991. His conduct clearly shows that the award
passed by SLAO was not accepted without
protest.
14. Additionally, we are of the opinion that in
cases where a large number of claimants are
involved, there will always be a few claimants
who may accept the award passed by the
Collector. If they are precluded from making a
reference for enhancement of compensation, it
could lead to an anomalous situation where out
of very large number of landowners, some of
them, located in scattered pockets would be
entitled to the compensation only as awarded by
the Collector while some of them in other
scattered pockets would be entitled to claim
enhancement of compensation. There would,
therefore, be two distinct class of landowners
similarly located and placed but receiving
different amounts of compensation for the
acquisition of the same land. Surely, this cannot
be the intention of Section 18 of the Act.
15. In the impugned judgment and order the
High Court has laid emphasis on the fact that
since the claimants had accepted the
compensation awarded by SLAO without
protest, the reference under Section 18 of the
Act was not maintainable. As we have found on
facts, this is incorrect and the judgment and
order passed by the High Court is, to this extent,
unsustainable.
16. The learned counsel for the State/GDA
relied upon Ashwani Kumar Dhingra v. State of
Punjab to contend that only a person who has
accepted the compensation under protest is
entitled to ask for a reference. The decision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
17 FA-616-2020
relied upon does not advance the case of the
learned counsel. That was a case decided on its
own facts pertaining to an individual in which
one member of the family was satisfied with the
compensation awarded to him in respect of his
parcel of land and other members of the family
were not and had accepted the compensation
under protest. The appellant in the cited case
sought to take advantage of the protest by other
members of his family. This Court, in that
context, referred to Section 18 of the Act and
held that a person interested, in order to enable
him to seek the remedy of reference can do so if
he does not accept the award made by the
Collector. That was also a case in which only an
individual was affected and not a large number
of landowners.
17. The learned counsel also submitted that the
protest letter of Chandra Bhan that has been
filed in this Court as a part of the paper book
does not contain any date, thereby implying that
the protest letter was not genuine. We cannot
entertain this submission since it involves a
decision on a fact that was not considered either
by the Reference Court or by the High Court.
However, we may only observe that in the
written statement filed by the State/GDA it has
not been stated anywhere when the
compensation was accepted by Chandra Bhan
(without protest) and the quantum thereof. On
the contrary, a rather general averment has been
made to the following effect:
"That the claimant(s) has/have accepted the
award and has/have received the amount of
compensation without protest as such the
reference is legally not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed."
18. In the absence of any definitive facts having
been pleaded by the State/GDA, it is difficult to
come to the conclusion that Chandra Bhan and
the other claimants had accepted the
compensation without protest.
28. Since, the evidence of respondent has remained
unrebutted that he had received the compensation
amount under protest, therefore, this Court is of
considered opinion, that the reference was
maintainable.
29. No other argument was advanced by Counsel for
the State.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
18 FA-616-2020
30. Accordingly, it is held that no illegality was
committed by the reference court by holding that not
only the reference was maintainable, but it was not
barred by time.
31. It was informed by the Counsel for the parties,
that the Land Owners have also challenged the award
on the question of quantum of compensation.
32. Therefore, by keeping the question of quantum of
compensation open, the award dated 13.07.2020
passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First
Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in
Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 is hereby
affirmed. The appeal filed by the State/Appellants is
hereby Dismissed.
33. Office is directed to keep the record of the
Reference Court in the Appeal filed by land owner.
34. No order as to costs."
6 . So far as the question of determination of market value solely
on the basis of Collector guidelines is concerned, this Court is of
considered opinion that submission made by counsel for the
State is misconceived. Collector guidelines are issued for
purposes of collecting the stamp duty. Therefore, it could be one
of the guiding factors but that cannot be the sole factor for
ascertaining the market value. The Supreme Court in the case of
Lal Chand Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2010 SC 170 has
held that Collector guidelines is a relevant piece of evidence for
ascertaining the market value. However, it was also held that the
said guidelines can be a relevant evidence only if they are
assessed by statutorily appointed expert committees in
accordance with prescribed assessment procedure. However,
Collector guidelines cannot be the sole criteria. The basic
purpose of Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
is to ascertain the market value of the land. For the said
purposes, sale deeds of the surrounding areas can also throw
light to ascertain the market value. Furthermore allocation of the
land, size and shape of the land, potential use of the land,
proximity of land to infrastructure like roads, utilities and market
conditions etc. are also relevant considerations.
7. Accordingly, the contention of counsel for appellants that the
Reference Court should not have considered any other aspect
except Collector guidelines is misconceived and it is hereby
rejected. However, it was informed by counsel for the parties
that appeals filed by land owners are also pending.
8. In the present appeal, it is the stand of the State that Reference
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25063
19 FA-616-2020
Court should not have applied any other criteria except the
Collector guidelines. The said contention has been rejected by
this Court. Although the State has not raised any objection as to
whether the aspects for ascertaining the market value has been
rightly assessed by Reference Court or not but, still in order to do
complete justice, it is directed that question as to whether market
value has been rightly assessed by Reference Court by applying
the other criteria is kept open to be decided in the appeal filed by
the land owners.
9. With aforesaid observation, the order/Award dated 21.01.2021
passed by I Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in
MJC (Land Acquisition) No.10/2015 is hereby affirmed and the
appeal filed by appellants/State is hereby dismissed in the light
of terms and conditions of the judgment passed in the case of
Lokendra Singh (supra) as well as the observation made in
respect of application of Collector guidelines.
10. Office is directed to keep a copy of this order and the record
of the Reference Court in the appeal filed by land owner. No
order as to costs."
6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in the terms and conditions of
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Purushottam (Supra) and the Award
dated 5/10/2019 passed by IX Additional District Judge Gwalior in MJC No.
200/2018 is hereby affirmed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
