IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Awadhesh Pratap Singh and another v. State of M.P. and others
First Appeal No. 883 of 2012 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 28.7.2012 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2011 by the VII Additional District Judge, Rewa; Decided on 22.9.2022
¼1½ Òwfe vtZu vfèkfu;e] 1894 && èkkjk 4] 6] 11 rFkk 23 && Òwfe ds cktkj ewY; ,oa uqdlkuh ds voèkkj.k d¢ fy, lqlaxr fnukad && çFke vfèklwpuk 19-4-2006 d¨ çdkf'kr && 18-10-2010 rFkk 18-11-2010 d¨ çdkf'kr vfèklwpukv¨a }kjk vfrf"Br && Òwfe vtZu vfèkdkjh ds lkFk gh vihy U;k;ky; }kjk çFke vfèklwpuk fnukad 19-4-2006 ls cktkj ewY; fuèkkZfjr djus esa =qfV dh xà && o"kZ 2010 esa çpfyr nj ls çfrdj dk iqufuZèkkZj.k djus d¢ fy, çR;FkÊ çkfèkdkjhx.k funsf'kr && vihykFkÊx.k Òwfe dk dCtk fy, tkus dh fnukad ij dkfjr uqdlkuh ds gdnkj ugÈ D;ksafd Òwfe ij Ñf"k ;k vU; fØ;kdyki ugÈ rFkk d¨Ã o`{k ugÈ && çfrdj d¢ vkèkkj ij èkkjk 23 ¼1d½ rFkk 23¼2½ d¢ vèkhu jde fuèkkZfjr fd, tkus dk vuqr¨"k çnku fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 9] 10 rFkk 13
¼2½ Òwfe vtZu vfèkfu;e] 1894 && èkkjk 4] 6 rFkk 24 && Òwfe d¢ ewY; esa o`f) dk voèkkj.k && Òwfe dk mi;ksx O;kikfjd ;k vkoklh; ç;¨tu¨a d¢ fy, ugÈ fd;k tk jgk Fkk && Ñf"k fØ;kdyki ugÈ fd, tk jgs Fks && og catj@iM+rh Fkh && Òwfe dk ewY; vflafpr Ñf"k Òwfe d¢ :i esa fuèkkZfjr djuk g¨xk] O;kikfjd rFkk vkoklh; ewY; okyh Òwfe d¢ :i esa ugÈA ¼iSjk 11
¼3½ Òwfe vtZu vfèkfu;e] 1894 && èkkjk 4] 6 rFkk 11 && çfrdj dk voèkkj.k && vfÒçsr && vuqeku d¢ vkèkkj ij #- 3]85]00]000@& dk ek¡x i= tkjh fd;k x;k && ;g ugÈ ekuk tk ldrk fd iwoZrj çfrdj #- 3]85]00]000@& voèkkfjr fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 12
¼4½ uSlfxZd U;k; && vfèkdkjh d¢ fo#) vln~Òko ds vfHkdFku fd, x, && mls O;fäxr gSfl;r esa i{kdkj ugÈ cuk;k x;k && vfHkdFku¨a ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 12
(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4, 6, 11 and 23 -- relevant date for determination of market value of land and damage -- first notification published on 19.4.2006 -- superseded by subsequent notifications published on 18.10.2010 and 18.11.2010 -- Land Acquisition Officer as well as appellate Court committed error in assessing market value from first notification dated 19.4.2006 -- respondent authorities directed to re-assess compensation at rate existing in the year 2010 -- appellants not entitled for any damage caused on date of taking possession of land as no agricultural or other activities carried out on land and no trees were standing -- relief of assessment of amount under section 23(1A) and 23 (2) on basis of compensation granted. [Paras 9, 10 & 13
(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4, 6 and 24 -- determination of enhancement in value of land -- land was not used for commercial and residential purposes -- no agricultural activities carried out -- it was lying fallow/waste -- value of land is to be assessed as unirrigated agricultural land and not land having commercial and residential value. [Para 11
(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4, 6 and 11 -- determination of compensation -- meaning -- letter of demand of Rs. 3,85,00,000/- issued on basis of guess -- it cannot be taken that earlier compensation has been determined as Rs. 3,85,00,000/-. [Para 12
(4) Natural Justice -- allegations of malafides made against officer -- he was not impleaded as party in personal capacity -- allegations cannot be taken into consideration. [Para 12
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants have filed this first appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against order dated 28.7.2012 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.26/2011 by VIIth Additional District Judge, Rewa (MP).
2. Appellants are owner of land bearing Khasra No.470, 471, 472 and 474 measuring total 0.599 Hq. situated at Village-Rathara Tehsil Hajoor District-Rewa (MP). State Government decided to acquire land belonging to private land owner/farmers for construction of bypass road National Highway No.7, Rewa. Notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.4.2006 and notification under section 6 of LA Act was issued on 26.4.2006. Land of appellants is also to be acquired. At the time of notifications, aforesaid disputed khasra numbers were entered in revenue record in name of Ramrati wife of Ramsia Kol. Land in question was sold by Ramrati to appellants Awadhesh Pratap Singh and Vinod Kumar Patel on 5.5.2005. Said land was tribal land, therefore, Collector on 16.10.2006 cancelled permission granted for sell of land. Due to said action of Collector, dispute of title over land in question arose and assessment of compensation in respect of land was not made. Dispute between Ramrati and appellants was finally settled in favour of appellants by Board of Revenue vide its order dated 8.8.2007. Mutation of land was done favour of appellants on 10.2.2009. Assessment of compensation in respect of land in question was separately taken. Appellants had filed an application before Land Acquisition Officer that notifications under sections 4 and 6 of LA Act were in respect of land measuring 0.283 hq. but actually total land belonging to appellants i.e. measuring 0.599 hq. has been acquired, therefore, appellants be paid compensation in respect of 0.599 hq. of land. Land Acquisition Officer published notifications under sections 4 and 6 of LA Act in respect of 0.599 hq. of land on 18.10.2010 and 18.11.2010. Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated 28.2.2011 for compensation of Rs.15,57,125/-. Dissatisfied by the award, appellants filed application for reference before Collector which was forwarded before VIIth Additional District Judge, Rewa and Case No.26/2011 was instituted on 3.10.2011.
3. Appellants averred that land in question is not agricultural land but land of commercial value. In surrounding areas of disputed land, shops, educational institution, colleges, workshop, RTO office and other institutions are located. Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for unirrigated land on basis of notification of year 2006 and compensation was paid only in respect of 0.283 hq. of land. Compensation ought to have been awarded as per Government guideline for commercial land as on 2010-2011 @ Rs.5400/- per square meter.
4. It is submitted by appellants that respondents had initially determined compensation at Rs.3,85,00,000/- but had arbitrarily altered it to Rs.15,57,125/-. Appellants made a claim of Rs.3,23,46,000/- and interest of 12% from 2006 and also paid for additional benefit under sections 23(1) and 23(2) of LA Act. Reference Court held that appellants failed to prove that land in question is residential and commercial. Court held that compensation is not to be paid from guideline for year 2010-2011. It was also held that appellants failed to show that an amount of Rs.3,85,00,000/- was initially assessed as compensation amount. Court altered compensation amount to Rs.17,62,735/- and said amount will carry interest of 15% per annum from 01.03.2011 till payment is made.
5. hereafter, appellants filed writ petition for grant of compensation for acquisition of their land. Writ Petition was disposed off vide order dated 29.7.2010 directing respondents to access compensation of land in question and pay it along with interest of 12% per annum. After passing of orders by Writ Court and appellants filed
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of notification under Section 4(1) and the determination of land v....
The market value of acquired land must be assessed based on its existing use and geographical situation at the time of the notification, with proper evidence required to substantiate claims for compe....
The market value of acquired land should be determined based on the nature of the land, and deductions for development costs should consider the purpose of acquisition. Left-out benefit components ma....
The court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation for acquired land, emphasizing the need for evidence-based valuation while modifying the interest rate to 9% per annum from the date of aw....
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just, proper and reasonable.
Land Acquisition - Claimant is entitled to get rental compensation in this case when the claimant is dispossessed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct classification of acquired land as perennially irrigated, leading to the entitlement of enhanced compensation, rental compensation, and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.