IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2025 FIRST APPEAL No. 773 of 2023 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus SARNAM SINGH DIED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1A)

KAILASHIBAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha – Government Advocate for appellants/State.

Shri Chetan Kanungo – Advocate for respondent No.2.

JUDGEMENT

This first appeal under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, has been filed against the order/Award dated 28.06.2022 passed by V District Judge, Gwalior in MJC (Land Acquisition) No.166/2022 by which reference filed by respondent has been allowed.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that so far as the ground raised by appellants with regard to the fact as to whether reference was barred by time Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN or not and whether respondent had accepted compensation amount without protest or not is concerned, same has already been decided by this Court by order dated 23.06.2025 in the case of State of M.P. And Others Vs. Lokendra Singh in FA. No.264/2021, therefore, for the aforesaid grounds are duly covered by order passed by this Court in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra) However, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that Reference Court should not have awarded compensation amount in excess of what was laid down by Collector in Collector guidelines.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that so far as the Collector guidelines issued by Collector are concerned, it is for the purposes of collection of stamp duty. It is submitted that it is true that Collector guidelines can be a one of the guiding factors, but for ascertaining the market value of land, Court is required to consider the registered sale deeds of adjoining/surrounding lands. Thus, it is submitted that Collector guidelines cannot be the solitary guideline for ascertaining the market value.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. So far as the question as to whether Reference was barred by time and whether respondent had accepted compensation amount without any protest or not is concerned, this Court in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra) has held as under:

“1. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) , has been filed against the order/Award dated 13.07.2020 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 by which reference filed by respondent has been allowed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

2. It is not out of place to mention here that against the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. By impugned award, the Trial Court has enhanced the compensation amount. It was informed by Counsel for the parties, that being dissatisfied by the award passed by the Reference Court, the Land owners have also filed First Appeal.

3. As a general practice, all the appeals arising out of one judgment and decree or award should be heard analogously, but in the present case, it was submitted by Counsel for appellant, that the State has not questioned the quantum of compensation and the appeal is being pressed only on two grounds i.e., that the reference was barred by time and since, the respondent/land owner had received the compensation amount therefore, the reference is not maintainable.

4. In view of the grounds of attack, this Court is of the considered opinion, that large number of appeals are pending but since, the question for consideration in both the appeals, i.e., by the State and the land owners, are not overlapping each other and the appeal filed by the State can be decided without adversely effecting the ground regarding quantum of compensation which is the subject matter of appeal filed by land owner, therefore, the appeal filed by the State is being decided.

5. The facts necessary for disposal of present appea