Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kesarichand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
First Appeal No.1686/2019
Ganesh
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1688/2019
Atul Kumar
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1689/2019
Ambaram
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1692/2019
Rughnath through L.R.s Ganesh and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1697/2019
Atul Kumar and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1701/2019
Rambha Bai and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1702/2019
Kalu
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1706/2019
Narendra
V/s
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1707/2019
Rakesh
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1708/2019
Himmat Singh
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1712/2019
Surendra
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1713/2019
Surendra and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1714/2019
Rupesh and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1715/2019
Hukumchandra through L.R.s Kamlesh and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1716/2019
Onkarlal and others
V/s
State of M.P. and another
First Appeal No.1894/2019
Kesharichand and others
V/s
3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
State of M.P. and another
*******************************************************
Shri Sapnesh Jain, learned Counsel for the
appellants/land owners.
Shri Nilesh Patel, learned Government Advocate for
the respondent/State.
*******************************************************
JUDGMENT
(11/05/2020)
1. I.A. Nos.7377, 7379, 7380, 7382, 7388, 7394, 7397, 7438, 7446, 7447, 7453, 7454, 7456, 7457, 7458 and 8230 of 2019 are the applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
2. As per office report, these appeals are barred by 436 days.
3. For the reasons assigned in the applications, which are supported by affidavits, the same are allowed. Delay in filing these appeals is condoned, subject to deposit of Rs.3,000/- in each case to be deposited in "Vidhivatika Fund" maintained by the High Court Bar Association, Indore.
4. Since a common question is involved in these first appeals, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience, facts are taken from FA No.1686/2019.
5. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed against the order of reference Court dated 02.04.2018, passed by the Additional District Judge, Dharampuri, District Dhar of Village - Pandranya, Tehsil--Dharampuri, District-- Dhar in Reference Case Nos.1185/2013 1178/2013, 1186/2013, 1182/2013, 1179/2013, 1184/2013, 1193/2013, 1173/2013, 1192/2013, 1181/2013, 1176/2013, 1177/2013, 1175/2013, 1169/2013, 1189/2013 and 1191/2013 whereby learned Reference Court considering the oral and documentary evidence and sale deed (Exhibit- P/1) filed by the appellant(s) in respect of Survey Nos.129/2, 127/1, 129/5, 146/1/2, 37/1, 128, 146/1/1, 146/1/3, 21/2, 58, 9/2/4, 133/1, 21/1, 209/24, 30/1, 9/2/3, 9/2/1, 9/2/2, 50/4, 32/1/2 and 172 has awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- for unirrigated and Rs.3,30,000/- for irrigated land.
6. No appeal has been filed by the respondents/State of M. P. against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court.
7. Both the parties have admitted that the land of Village Dahiwar and Gyaraspur Khedi was acquired for the same project i.e. Omkareshwar Canal by the same notification and this Court has decided the matter by enhancing the compensation in First Appeal No.1314/2014 Devdutt Vs. State of MP 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE and another vide award dated 30.11.2017 and the same judgment has been followed in the bunch of appeals bearing FA Nos.1315/2014, 1316/2016, 1317/2014, 1318/2014, 1319/2014, 1320/2014 and 1321/2014 award dated 09.12.2017. Both the parties have no objection, if the present bunch of appeals is decided on the same terms.
8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salaha Begam and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013)11 SCC 426 and Ali Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717 had made it clear that in case the Court has decided the compensation for the land acquired for the same project in respect of some village, it shall apply to the identically situated land acquired for the same project but situated in the adjustent village.
9. Relevant part of the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by this court in FA No.1314/2014 Devdutt Vs. State of MP and another reads thus:-
"4. In the present case, no material was filed before the Reference Court regarding the percentage of deduction nor respondents have pointed out that out of total acquired land, how much land will be wasted, when they construct the canal. In absence of any evidence, the Reference Court committed an error in deducting 65% towards development charges.6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
5. Ram Singh Meena (PW-1), Land Acquisition & Settlement Officer, Manawar, District Dhar in para-2 of his statement has deposed that in respect of area acquired for Sakalda Command, the compensation for irrigated and un- irrigated land was fixed @ Rs.2,78,081/- per hectare and Rs.1,59,375/- per hectare respectively. He in para-3 of his cross- examination has very categorically admitted that Sakalda Command area is 20 kilomters from Gyaspurkhedi.
6. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also in absence of any material, I relying on para-16 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRs. & others (supra) direct the respondents to deduct 1/3rd towards development charges. The "deduction for development" consists of two components. The first is with reference to the area required to be utilized for development works and the second is the cost of the development work. Therefore the deduction for the 'development factor' to be made with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorized private lay out or an industrial layout.
7. In the present case the land has been acquired for construction of Omkareshwar Canal. So the amount of expenses that could be incurred in developing the area for construction of canal also varies. Much more is required to be done for development purposes. No planned development is required, no internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines is required to be developed. For these reasons the cost of development would be 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE maximum 1/3rd. The deduction of 65% towards development would be by the learned Reference Court is on higher side. The reference court reduced the amount of compensation by mechanically applying the formula of deduction of 65%, without considering the fact that land in question was acquired for construction of canal
8. On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also in absence of any material, I in the light of para 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by LRs. & others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (supra), direct the respondents to deduct 1/3rd towards development charges.
9. For these reasons, the impugned judgment is partly set aside. First Appeal No.1314/2014 is allowed in part to the extent that 1/3rd would be deducted towards development charges. The respondents shall assess the compensation accordingly and pay the amount along with other statutory benefits. The respondents are also directed to pay the difference / balance amount to the appellants -
claimants with all statutory benefits of interest within three months from today. No costs."
10. In view of the aforesaid, this bunch of first appeals is disposed of with costs on the same terms and the aforesaid decision of this Court dated 30.11.2017 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1314/2014 Devdutt s/o Laxman Mandloi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another shall apply mutatis mutandis in this bunch of first appeals also, subject to 8 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if any Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal in this matter is filed by either party. Original order be retained in First Appeal No.1686/2019 and a copy thereof be retained in connected cases.
11. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.05.11 16:28:17 +05'30'