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

2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT

JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT

FIRST APPEAL No.883 of 2012

Between:-

1.

AWDHESH PRATAP SINGH S/O

SHRI

GAJADHAR

SINGH

MOHALLA

DHEKAHA,

TAH.

HUZUR, DISTT. REWA (MADHYA

PRADESH)

2.

VINOD KUMAR PATEL S/O LATE

SHRI

RAMSHARAN

PATEL

GOLPARK, REWA, TAH. HUZUR

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT

(BY SHRI SHREYASH PANDIT AND SHRI RAMPAL

SINGH – ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

THE COLLECTOR REWA DISTT.

REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

TAHSIL

HUZUR

(MADHYA

PRADESH)

3.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC

WORKS DEPARTMENT NATIONAL

HIGHWAY,

DIVISION

REWA

(MADHYA PRADESH)

....RESPONDENTS

(SHRI DIVESH JAIN – GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on

:

06.05.2022

Delivered on

:

22.09.2022

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This appeal has come up for hearing on this day, the Court

passed the following:

Advocates:
,Advocate General

JUDGEMENT

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





                                              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
                                              whatsapp-icon Back to top