Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J. P. Gupta, J.
Manendra Prasad (Dead) through LRs Smt. Rashmi Mishra and another v. Land Acquisition Officer and others
First Appeal No.159 of 1999 (Jabalpur); against judgment dated 27.11.1998 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Satna
in MJC No.102/1994; Decided on 2.2.2017.
V. S. Choudhary for appellants;
Amod Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State;
Headnote: ¼1½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 18 & izfrdj vf/kfu.kZ; dks vk{ksfir djus dk vf/kdkj & izfrdj vH;kifÙk ds v/khu izkIr fd;k & ekSf[kd lk{; ls lkfcr & ogha Hkwfe vtZu vf/kdkjh }kjk vius i= fnukad 19-4-1993 }kjk vfHkLohÑr & jkT; dh vksj ls dksbZ [kaMu lk{; ugha & ;fn O;fDr fyf[kr esa vfHkO;Dr :i ls vH;kifÙk vfHkO;Dr ugha djrk & vH;kifÙk ekSf[kd :i ls dh tk ldrh gS & ,sls nkosnkjksa dks izfrdj ds vf/kfu.kZ; dks vk{ksfir djus dk vf/kdkj gSA 2017 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 120 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½
¼2½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 11] 28d rFkk 54 & izfrdj dh o`f) & flafpr nks Qlyh Hkwfe & Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; & cankscLr ds le; Hkwfe dh vfHkfyf[kr fo'ks"krk ij vo/kkfjr u fd vtZu dh fnukad dks Hkwfe dh fo'ks"krk ij & ;g izR;{kr% vuqfpr igq¡p gS & Hkwfe dh fo'ks"krk ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls laiq"V & leLr vftZr Hkwfe ,d:irk ls ewY;kafdr dh tkuk pkfg, & vihykFkhZx.k #i;s 67]120@& izfr gsDVj cktkj ewY; vo/kkfjr vuqlkj izfrdj ds lkFk vU; dkuwuh Qk;nk ds gd~nkj gSa & edkuksa ds ewY; esa #i;s 22]569-84 ds LFkku ij #i;s 50]000@& dh o`f) dh xbZ & bl izdkj vihykFkhZx.k /kkjk 28d ds v/khu C;kt ds lkFk izfrdj dh o`f) dh xbZ jde #i;s 1]04]600@& ds gd~nkj gSaA ¼iSjk 10] 11] 12] 15 ,oa 16½
¼3½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 11] 18 rFkk 54 & nks dqvksa] es<+ rFkk o`{kksa ds izfrdj dk nkok & leLr Hkwfe dk flafpr Hkwfe ds :i esa fopkj fd;k x;k & dqvksa ds fy, i`Fkd~ ls izfrdj ugha fn;k tk ldrk & es<+ rFkk o`{kksa ds fo"k; esa nkok & vihykFkhZ ds dFkuksa ds flok; & mi;qZDr ds leFkZu esa dqN Hkh ugha & ,sls nkos ukeatwj fd, x,A ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½
(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.18 -- right to challenge award of compensation -- compensation received under protest -- proved by oral evidence -- same acknowledged by land acquisition officer vide its letter dated 19.4.1993 -- no rebuttal evidence on behalf of State -- if person not expressed his protest expressly in writing -- protest can be made orally
-- such claimants have right to challenge the award of compensation. 2017(1) MPLJ 120 relied on. [Paras 8 & 9
(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.11 and 28A and 54 -- enhancement of compensation -- irrigated two crops lands -- market value of lands -- determined on quality of land recorded at time of Bandobast and not on quality of lands on date of acquisition -- it is apparently incorrect approach -- quality of land corroborated by oral and documentary evidence -- all acquired lands should be evaluated uniformly -- appellants are entitled for compensation according to market value as determined as Rs.67,120/- per hectare along with other statutory benefit -- price of houses enhanced as Rs.50,000/- in place of Rs.22,569.84 --thus appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation amount Rs.1,04,600/- along with interest under section 28A. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 15 & 16
(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.11, 18 and 54 -- claim of compensation of two wells, medh and trees -- all lands considered as irrigated land -- separate compensation cannot be given for well -- claim about medh and trees -- except statement of appellant -- nothing on record to support the aforesaid claim -- such claim disallowed. [Paras 13 & 14
1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 27.11.1998 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Satna (MP), in MJC No.102/1994, arising out of reference application filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 15.5.1992 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Satna, in Revenue Case No.5/91-92.
2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that, the agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.11/2 area 1.152 acre, 16 area 0.798 acre, 20 area 3.553 acre, 21 area 0.729 acre, 22 area 0.032 acre, 23 area 0.223 acre and 24 area 0. 170 acre, total area 6.657 hectare, situated in village Rampur, Tahsil Rampur Baghelan, District Satna, were of the ownership of the appellant and the respondents No.2 to 4 and which were acquired for the construction of Tons Hydel Project, Sirmour, District Rewa for the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board by the respondent No.1. With regard to the acquisition of the aforesaid lands, a notification was published in official gazette dated 9.1.1992 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisition officer passed the award on 15.5.1992, whereby total value of the land was determined at Rs.3,03,025.64 and the value of the house situated on the acquired land was determined Rs.22,569.84 with other statutory benefits and thus, total compensation was determined Rs.4,36,656.09. The appellant No.1 and the respondents No.2 to 4 submitted an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the land acquisition officer which was referred to the District Court, Satna, whereby they claimed that the market value of the land fixed by the land acquisition officer is very meager. It should be Rs.30,000 to 40,000/- per acre. They also claimed that the entire acquired land was irrigated and yearly two crops were taken. Further they claimed that on the acquired land, a house having 15 rooms was situated and one Kachcha house was also situated but no adequate compensation has been given. They also claimed that there were two well on the acquired land and on the land bearing Survey No.22, there was a medh. Apart from it, on the Survey No.20, there were 60 mangoes trees but the compensation has been given only for 27 trees which is also very low. Therefore, value of the house be determined Rs.3 lacs and value of the well be determined Rs.33,000/- and value of the medh be determined Rs.15,000/- and the value of the Kachcha house be determined Rs.28,000/- and value of the tress be determined Rs.3 lacs. Thereafter, with other statutory benefits, award be passed.
3. On behalf of the respondents No.1 and 5, it has been stated that as per the market rate, value of the acquired land has been determined and the value of the house is also correct and for other heads, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation. The land acquisition officer has determined the compensation in accordance with law. They further stated that at the time of receiving the compensation, no objection was made and the application for reference was not submitted within prescribed period. Hence, the application is time barred.
4. Learned lower Court after considering the evidence and having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record has held that the claimant has received the compensation without any protest. Hence, they are not entitled to claim for enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, the application has been dismissed.
5. The appellant being one of the claimants has challenged the aforesaid finding of the learned lower Court on the ground that the finding of the learned lower Court is contrary to law. The finding that the amount was received without any protest is perverse and against the material available on record. The land acquisition officer in the letter of reference has already mentioned that the a
