Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.P. Gupta, J.
Manendra Prasad (dead) thr. his LRs Smt. Rashmi Mishra and another
v. Land Acquisition Officer and others
First Appeal No.159 of 1999 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment
dated 27.11.1998, passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Satna (M.P.) in MJC No.102 of 1994; Decided on 2.2.2017.
V. S. Choudhary for appellants;
Amod Gupta, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State;
None for respondents No. 2 to 5.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.4(1), 18, 23, 28A and 54 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.96 -- enhancement of compensation -- lower Court held that compensation received without any protest hence appellants not entitled for some -- appeal -- they received compensation with protest and are entitled to challenge award as a matter of right -- all required land required to be evaluated unifarmly without any discrimination at rate of Rs.67,120/- per hectare -- value of house can be determined at Rs.50,000/- without any cogent evidence no separate compensation can be given for means which make land irrigated -- appellants and respondents No.2 to 4 entitled to enhanced amount Rs.1,04,600/- of compensation as claimed -- impugned judgment set aside -- appeal allowed.
Held : In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of the learned lower Court is set aside and it is held that the compensation received by the appellant and other claimants was under protest and they are entitled to challenge the award as a matter of right.
As per the award, value of higher quality irrigated land has been determined at Rs.67,120/- per hectare. Therefore, as per the norms of the land acquisition officer, the acquired lands are required to be evaluated at the rate of Rs.67,120/- per hectare.
Nothing on record to support the aforesaid claim. Therefore, without any cogent evidence, in these heads no compensation can be given to the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings of the questions No.1 and 2, impugned judgment is set aside and the claim of the appellant for enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,04,600/-. 2017(1) MPLJ 120 relied on.
Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 4¼1½] 18] 23] 28d rFkk 54 & flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 96 izfrdj dh o`f} & fupys U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd izfrdj fcuk fdlh vH;kifr ds izkIr dh xbZ blfy, vihykFkhZx.k mlds gdnkj ugha & vihy & mUgksaus izfrdj vH;kifr ds lkFk izkIr fd;k rFkk vf/kfu.kZ; dks vf/kdkj ds :i esa vk{ksfir djus ds gdnkj gS & lHkh vko';d Hkwfe dk ewY;kadu fcuk fdlh foHksn ds :i;s 67]120@& izfr gsDVs;j dh nj ls fd;k tkuk visf{kr & vkokl ds ewY; dk fu/kkZj.k :i;s 50]000@& fd;k tk ldrk gS & fcuk fdlh rdZiw.kZ lk{; ds dksbZ vyx ls izfrdj ml lk/ku ds fy, ugha nh tk ldrh ftlls Hkwfe lafpr gqbZ & vihykFkhZx.k rFkk izR;FkhZx.k dz-2 ls 4 o`f} dh gqbZ jde :i;s 1]04]600@& izfrdj tSlk fd nkok fd;k x;k] ds gdnkj gS & vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr & vihy eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr fopkj&foe'kZ dks ns[krs gq,] fupys U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd vihykFkhZ rFkk vU; nkosnkjksa }kjk izkIr izfrdj vH;kifr ds v/khu Fkh rFkk os vf/kfu.kZ; dks vf/kdkj ds :i esa vk{ksfir djus ds gdnkj gSA
vf/kfu.kZ; ds vuqlkj] mPp xq.kork dh flafpr Hkwfe dk ewY; 67]120@& izfr gsDVs;j ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA blfy, Hkwfe vtZu vf/kdkjh ds ekudksa ds vuqlkj vftZr Hkwfe dk :i;s 67]120@& izfr gsDVs;j dh nj ls ewY;kadu fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA
iwoZdfFkr nkos dk leFkZu djus ds fy, vfHkys[k ij dqN ugha gS] blfy, bu 'kh"kksZ esa fcuk fdlh l'kDr lk{; ds vihykFkhZ dks dksbZ izfrdj ugha fn;k tk ldrkA
iwoZdfFkr fopkj&foe'kZ dks ns[krs gq, rFkk iz'u dz-1 rFkk 2 ds fu"d"kZ] vk{ksfir fu.kZ; vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vihykFkhZ dk izfrdj dh o`f} ds fy, :i;s 1]04]600@& dk nkok Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA blfy, izR;FkhZ dz-1 rFkk 5 dks o`f} dh gqbZ izfrdj dh jde :i;s 1]04]600@& vnk djus ds fy, funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA 2017 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 120 voyafcrA
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 (M.P.), 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 t
