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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vishal Dhagat, J.
Awdhesh Pratap Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 883 of 2012
Decided On : 22-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Shreyash Pandit And Shri Rampal Singh - Advocate., for the Appellant; Shri Divesh Jain - Government Advocate., for the Respondent

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 value as unirrigated agricultural land.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Land Acquisition - Section 54 - Khasra No.470, 471, 472 and 474 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 23 - The court discussed the assessment of compensation, the determination of land value, and the consideration of market value at the time of notification under Section 4(1). The court also highlighted the neglect of enhancement in land value due to its use after acquisition and the assessment of damages under Section 23(1A) and 23(2).

Fact of the Case:

Appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the compensation for their land acquired for the construction of a bypass road. The dispute arose due to the cancellation of permission for the sale of tribal land and the subsequent settlement in favor of the appellants. The appellants claimed compensation based on the commercial value of the land, while the court held that the land was unirrigated agricultural land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compensation should be assessed based on the market value of the land in 2010, considering the subsequent notifications under Section 4 and Section 6. It also held that the land was unirrigated agricultural land and that the allegations of malice were not substantiated. The court directed the respondents to reassess the compensation and draw a decree accordingly.

Issues: The issues involved the assessment of compensation, the determination of land value, and the consideration of market value at the time of notification under Section 4(1). The court also addressed the neglect of enhancement in land value due to its use after acquisition and the assessment of damages under Section 23(1A) and 23(2).

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the compensation should be based on the market value of the land in 2010, and that the land was unirrigated agricultural land. It also ruled that the allegations of malice were not substantiated and directed the reassessment of compensation by the respondents.

Final Decision: The first appeal was partly allowed, and the respondents were directed to reassess the market value of the land and the amount under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants have filed this first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against order dated 28.07.2012 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 19.04.2006 and notification under Section 6 of LA Act was issued on 26.04.2006. 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 05.05.2005. 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 28.02.2011 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 03.10.2011.

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. Thereafter, 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 fresh application on 27.9.2010 for grant of compensation. Fresh notification under Section 4(1) was i

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          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