IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 3618 of 2014 BRAJENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Akshat Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Yogesh Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

Reserved on : 21.01.2026 Delivered on : 06.02.2026 ORDER

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claims following reliefs:-

"1-That, order vide annexure P-1 may kindly be quash.

2-That, Respondents may kindly be directed to not to make any hindrance while paying compensation to rehabilitate from Village Gatwaya to other place and may kindly directed to pay compensation @ 10 Lakh as being given to others.

3-That, Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, also be passed along with the cost of petition."

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:-

3.1 When the decision was taken by the respondents for expansion of Madhav National Park under Project Tiger vide policy Annexure P/3, a meeting between the Administration and the Gram Sabha was held on 14.07.2012 wherein, it was resolved that compensation at the rate of Rs.10 Lacs per displaced person above 18 years of age would be disbursed. The cut-off date for determining the eligibility i.e. 18 years was made as 28.07.2012.

3.2 Initially, vide Annexure P/2, the District Level Execution Committee, Shivpuri conducted verification of the eligible members of the displaced persons for the purposes of grant of compensation. The petitioner on the basis of ossification report dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure P/4), since was found to be above 18 years and below 20 years, vide noting dated 28.09.2013 made in the inter- departmental communication by the Assistant Director, Madhav National Park, was recommended for grant of compensation.

3.3 It appears that since the compensation was not paid to the petitioner and the representation submitted by him remained pending, he approached this Court in W.P. No.6327/2013, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 10.09.2013, directing the Collector, Shivpuri to decide the pending representation/claim of the petitioner and in pursuance thereto, vide order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the respondent No.3, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected as on the basis of report received from the Education Department, the petitioner was found to be less than 18 years of age on 28.07.2012. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the ossification report dated 26.09.2012 revealed the petitioner to be above 18 years and below 20 years of age, his claim could not have been rejected on the ground as stated in the impugned order dated 17.01.2014. By filing a rejoinder to the return filed by the State, the counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was never admitted to any school by his parents and vide Annexure P/9, the age of the petitioner was initially accepted to be 18 years.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the writ petition and submits that the claim of the petitioner was enquired, however, it was found that as per the available school record, the date of birth of the petitioner since was 13.07.1996, he was less than 18 years of age on 28.07.2012. Therefore, he was not found entitled for grant of compensation under the policy. He submits that Annexure R/1, i.e. the communication dated 6.10.2012 issued by the District Education Officer, District Shivpuri contains the list of persons whose age was verified from the school records and the list appended to Annexure R/1 indicates that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age, therefore, he was not entitled for grant of benefit.

6. In compliance of the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by this Court in connected