SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(MP) 891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
N.K. Mody, J.
Mangu and Ors.
Vs.
State of MP. and Anr.
F.A. No. 515/2008
Decided On: 15.12.2010

Headnote:(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.4(1) and 18 -- land was acquired by State Government for the purpose of construction of dam vide Notification -- compensation was assessed for the land n but at the time of disbursement, the claim of compensation was rejected on the ground of the appellants being Government lessee -- ultimately Government lessee was also considered to be entitled for compensation n again second Notification was issued -- compensation will be awarded on the basis of second Notification.

       Held : Initially the land was acquired by the State Government vide Notification dated 6.2.1998 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was assessed on the same rate as stated above but at the time of disbursement of compensation the claim of the appellant in all the appeals was rejected on the ground that the status of the appellant is of Government lessee, therefore, appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation, hence claim of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 31.7.2000 and the possession was taken. In the application it was alleged that after dismissing of the claim and also after taking the possession in view of the law laid down by the Honble apex Court it was found that even if the appellant is lessee, then too, appellant is entitled for compensation, therefore, again Notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.4.2002.

       So far the question of awarding compensation on the basis of Notification dated 6.2.1998 is concerned, since subsequent Notification was issued on 26.4.2002, therefore, there was no justification in awarding the compensation on the basis of first Notification. AIR 1988 SC 1615 followed. 2009(III) MPWN 95 relied on. [Paras 2 & 9]

       (2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.12(2) and 18 -- appellant not present before the Collector at the time of passing of award -- no evidence of intimation to the appellant about the award -- objections of appellant will be considered to be filed within time. AIR 1963 SC 1604 and (2010)3 SCC 545 followed. AIR 1985 Guj. 170 relied on. [Para 8]

       ¼1½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 4¼1½ rFkk 18 && jkT; ljdkj }kjk cka/k ds fuekZ.k ds iz;kstu ls ^vf/klwpuk* }kjk Hkwfe dk vtZu fd;k x;k && Hkwfe ds fy, izfrdj dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k && ijarq laforj.k ds le;] vihykFkhZx.k ds ljdkjh iV~Vsnkj gksus ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj dk nkok ukeatwj fd;k x;k && varr% ljdkjh iV~Vsnkj dks Hkh izfrdj dk gdnkj ekuk x;k && iqu% f}rh; vf/klwpuk tkjh dh xbZ && izfrdj dk vf/kfu.kZ; f}rh; vf/klwpuk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk gSA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izkjaHk esa] jkT; ljdkj }kjk Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fnukad 6-2-1998 }kjk Hkwfe dk vtZu fd;k x;k rFkk Åij crkbZ xbZ nj ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k ijarq izfrdj ds laforj.k ds le; lHkh vihyksa esa vihykFkhZ dk nkok bl vk/kkj ij ukeatwj dj fn;k x;k fd vihykFkhZ dh izkfLFkfr ljdkjh iV~Vsnkj dh gS] blfy,] vihykFkhZ izfrdj dh fdlh jde ds fy, gdnkj ugha gS] blfy, vihykFkhZ dk nkok vkns‘k fnukad 31-7-2000 }kjk ukeatwj fd;k x;k rFkk dCtk fy;k x;kA vkosnu es ;g vfHkdFku fd;k x;k fd nkos dks [kkfjt djus ds rFkk dCtk ysus ds i‘pkr~ ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vf/kdfFkr fof/k dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq, ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd Hkys&gh vihykFkhZ iV~Vsnkj gS] rc Hkh] vihykFkhZ izfrdj dk gdnkj gS] blfy,] iqu% 26-4-2002 dks Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk tkjh dh xbZA

       tgk¡ rd vf/klwpuk fnukad 6-2-1998 ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj ds vf/kfu.kZ; ds iz‘u dk ljksdkj gS] D;ksafd 26-4-2002 dks i‘pkr~orhZ vf/klwpuk tkjh dh xbZ Fkh] blfy,] izFke vf/klwpuk ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj dk vf/kfu.kZ; djuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 1615 vuqlfjrA 2009¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 95 voyafcrA

       ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 9½

       ¼2½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 12¼2½ rFkk 18 && vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr djus ds le; vihykFkhZ dyDVj ds le{k mifLFkr ugha && vf/kfu.kZ; ds ckjs esa vihykFkhZ dks lwpuk dk dksbZ lk{; ugha && vihykFkhZ dh vkifRrRr;k¡ le; ds Hkhrj izLrqr dh xbZ gq, ekuh tk,axhA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1604 rFkk ¼2010½3 ,l lh lh 545 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1985 xqt- 170 voyafcrA

       ¼iSjk 8½

JUDGMENT

N.K. Mody, J.

1. This judgment shall also govern disposal of F.A. Nos. of which numbers are mentioned in the chart here in below as in all the appeals the Appellant s are the land owners and the Respondent is the State and in all the appeals the question involved is one and the same. In all the appeals the applications filed by the Appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (which shall be referred as the L.A. Act) for enhancement of the amount of compensation were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Full particulars of all the cases are as under:

Sr. No. F.A. No. Area of land acquired Compensation determined by L.A.O. Claim in Appeal

1 515/08 0.84 Rs. 96,896/- Rs. 1,36,920/-

2 499/08 1.67 Rs. 77,284/- Rs. 2,72,210/-

3 500/08 2.43 Rs. 2,80,306/- Rs. 1,63,000/-

4 501/08 1.21 Rs. 63,444/- Rs. 3,96,096/-

5 502/08 1.67 Rs. 80,374/- Rs. 1,97,230/-

6 503/08 0.67 Rs. 77,286/- Rs. 2,72,210/-

7 504/08 1.30 Rs. 62,567/- Rs. 1,09,210/-

8 506/08 1.21 Rs. 1,39,576/- Rs. 2,39,610/-

9 507/08 2.00 Rs. 2,30,705/- Rs. 1,97,230/-

10 508/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 3,26,000/-

11 509/08 1.46 Rs. 1,68,414/- Rs. 2,37,980/-

12 510/08 1.04 Rs. 1,19,967/- Rs. 1,69,520/-

13 511/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 2,72,210/-

14 512/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,368/- Rs. 2,72,210/-

15 513/08 0.84 Rs. 96,896/- Rs. 1,36,920/-

16 514/08 1.46 Rs. 70,268/- Rs. 1,18,990/-

17 516/08 2.30 Rs. 2,65,309/- Rs. 3,74,900/-

18 517/08 1.46 Rs. 1,68,413/- Rs. 1,63,000/-

19 518/08 2.00 Rs. 1,84,564/- Rs. 3,26,000/-

20 519/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 2,72,210/-

21 520/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 2,72,210/-

22 521/08 0.65 Rs. 74,980/- Rs. 1,05,950/-

23 522/08 0.65 Rs. 31,282 Rs. 52,957/-

2. Short facts of the case are that in all the appeals Appellant are the land owners of the land situated at village Khajuri, Tehsil Susner, District Shajapur. In all the cases the land was acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of construction of Ganeshpura Dam. In all the cases applications were filed by the Appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 19.5.2004, wherein it was alleged that Appellant s are the land owners, whose land has been acquired for the aforesaid purpose and the compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 9.5.2003 @ Rs. 81,521/- for irrigated land, Rs. 43,185/- for unirrigated land and Rs. 34,013/-for barren land. It was alleged that initially the land was acquired by the State Govt. vide Notification dated 6.2.98 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was assessed on the same rate as stated above but at the time of disbursement of compensation the claim of the Appellant in all the appeals was rejected on the ground that the status of the Appellant is of Govt. lessee, therefore, Appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation, hence claim of the Appellant was rejected vide order dated 31.7.2000 and the possession was taken. In the application it was alleged that after dismissing of the claim and also after taking the possession in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it was found that even if the Appellant is lessee, then too, Appellant is entitled for compensation, therefore, again Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.4.2002. It was alleged that since fresh Notification was issued on 26.4.2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the compensation could not have been assessed on the basis of the earlier Notification dated 6.2.98. It was alleged that compensation can be assessed only on the basis of subsequent Notification dated 26.4.2002. It was prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the case application filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned order, whereby compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer be set aside and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

3. This application was opposed by the Respondents by filing reply, wherein all the facts stated by the Appellant were denied. It was alleged th




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top