Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.P. Gupta, J.
Mukesh and others v. State of M.P. and others
First Appeal No.10 of 1997 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment
dated 10.10.1996, passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal in M.J.C. No.16 of 1996; Decided on 29.9.2016.
M.A. Usmani for appellants;
Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/State;
Ashok Lalwani for LRs of the respondents No.3 and 4;
Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5;
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.54, 4(1) and 18 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.1 R.10 and O.41 R.27 and S.96 -- enhancement of compensation -- passed by trial Court -- challenged -- no relevant oral or documentary evidence on record on basis of which market price of acquired land can be determined -- price fixed by lower Court on basis of inconsiderable evidence -- not required to be interfered with as respondents No.1 and 2 not challenged same by filing appeal against finding of market value of acquired land -- appellants failed to establish their claim for price more than Rs.660/- per acre as determined by trial Court -- award of reference Court to that extent against respondents No.1 and 2 attained finality -- finding of lower Court cannot be set aside -- appeal dismissed -- impugned judgment as relates to finding as to apportionment is without jurisdiction and set aside.
Held : It is held that the market value determined by the Court below cannot be said to be on a lower side, as claimed by the appellants and the same finding cannot be set aside on the basis of the objection raised by the appellants and the market value cannot be determined at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per acre. 2012(1) MPLJ (SC) 19, (2013)14 SCC 50, (2003)4 SCC 481 and (2015)5 SCC 801 referred to. [Paras 19 & 20
Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 54] 4¼1½ rFkk 18 & flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-1 fu-10 rFkk vk-41 fu-27 ,oa /kkjk 96 & izfrdj dh o`f} & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr & vk{ksfir & vfHkys[k ij dksbZ ekSf[kd ;k nLrkosth lqlaxr lk{; ugha ftlds vk/kkj ij vftZr Hkwfe dh cktkj dher dk fu/kkZj.k gks lds & fupys U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj v;ksX; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij dher fu;r dh xbZ & gLr{ksi djuk visf{kr ugha D;ksafd izR;FkhZx.k dz-1 rFkk 2 }kjk vftZr Hkwfe dh cktkj dher ds fu"d"kZ ds fo:} vihy izLrqr dj bls vk{ksfir ugha fd;k x;k & vihykFkhZx.k :i;s 660@& izfr ,dM+ ds vf/kd dher ds viuk nkok LFkkfir djus esa vlQy tSlk fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k & funsZ'k U;k;ky; dk vf/kfu.kZ; izR;FkhZx.k dz-1 rFkk 2 ds fo:} ml lhek rd vafrerk izkIr dj pqdk & fupys U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vihy [kkfjt & vk{ksfir fu.kZ; izHkktu ds laca/k esa vf/kdkfjrk foghu gS rFkk vikLrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku fupys U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ cktkj dher de gksuk ugha dgh tk ldrh tSlk fd vihykFkhZx.k us nkok fd;k gS rFkk bl fu"d"kZ dks vihykFkhZ }kjk mBk, x, vk{ksi ds vk/kkj ij vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk cktkj dher 3]000@& izfr ,dM+ dh nj ls fu/kkZfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA 2012 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼,l lh½ 19] ¼2013½ 14 ,l lh lh 50] ¼2003½ 4 ,l lh lh 481 rFkk ¼2015½ 5 ,l lh lh 801 fufnZ"VA
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 10.10.1996 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in M.J.C. No.16/1996, 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 15.12.1967 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal, in Revenue Case No.22-LA/65-66.
2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case which are not disputed are that by the notification dated 30.11.1965 issued under section 4(1) of the Act, the Collector, Bhopal, acquired the land area 323.37 acres which fell in the submerged area of Bhadbhada dam. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 15.12.1967 in case No.22-LA/65-66 whereby market value of the land at the rate of Rs.220/- per acre and on that amount 25% additional amount and 15% solatium, total at the rate of Rs.316/- per acre amount of compensation was fixed.
3. Against the aforesaid award, an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was submitted by 14 persons before the L.A.O. Bhopal, whose names are mentioned in the impugned judgment as claimants No.1 to 14. The L.A.O. Bhopal referred the matter to the District Judge, Bhopal. The aforesaid application was referred for determination of the amount of compensation of the acquired land and on the basis of aforesaid application in District Court, Bhopal, a reference case was registered. During the trial appellants No.2 and 3 submitted an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC and they were allowed to join as claimants No.15 and 16. The learned reference Court by impugned order determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.660/- per acre and also awarded statutory benefit as payable on the relevant dates. The learned reference Court in addition also directed that in the award passed by the L.A.O., no compensation has been awarded to appellants No.2 and 3 so also to Babulal, Laxmi Narayan, Ramkunwarbai and Badamilal and Shrikishan, therefore, it is not clear that on behalf of them why reference has been made and for the land area 36.23 acre only Hukumchand, respondent No. 3, has been declared to be entitled to the compensation.
4. Appellants have raised an objection in this appeal to the effect that the impugned judgment passed by the learned reference Court is contrary to law, market value determined by the learned reference Court is very meager and in this regard evidence adduced by the parties has not been considered properly. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties market value of the land should be fixed at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per acre and, accordingly, compensation be determined along with other statutory benefits.
5. Apart from it, appellants No.2 and 3 have also challenged the finding regarding apportionment of the compensation amount. The learned court below has directed to give full amount of compensation relating to the land area 36.23 acres to only Hukumchand, while the aforesaid land in the joint ownership of appellants No.2 and 3 and Babulal, Laxmi Narayan and Hukumchand in which appellants No.2 and 3 have one half share. Therefore, in this regard impugned judgment be set aside and L.A.O. be directed to pay one half share to appellants No.2 and 3. Appellant No.1 has prayed that according to the award of the L.A.O. he is entitled to compensation for the land area 2.47 acres and his brother Kishanlal was also entitled to compensation for the land area 9 acres; but his brother Kishan is no more and he is only his legal representative, hence the compensation, which was to be given to his brother, be given to him.
6. The appellants have filed this appeal on 8.1.1997 before this Court. At that time, other co-sharers of the land namely Hukumchand, Babulal, Laxmi Narayan and Ramkunwarbai were not incorporated as the respondents, but when on behalf of
