Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Badrilal S/O Punjraj (Deceased) Thr. ... on 22 November, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 22nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 1744 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DHAR
1.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
AND BUSINESS CENTER PITHAMPUR, DIST
2.
DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
M.P. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
ORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS
3.
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER REGIONAL
OFFICE,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI VALMIK SAKARGAYEN, G.A. FOR PETITIONER NOS.1
AND 2.)
(BY SHRI SUNIL JAIN, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI AVIRAL
VIKAS KHARE, SHRI SACHIN PATEL, COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER NO.3)
(CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, M.P.I.D.C. SHRI R. K. BHAWAR FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3 IS PRESENT IN PERSON)
AND
1. BADRILAL S/O PUNJRAJ (DECEASED) THR.
LRS. HARIRAM S/O BADRILAL GRAM
2
MADHAVPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADRILAL S/O PUNJRAJ (DECEASED) THR.
LRS. GITABAI W/O BADRILAL GRAM
2.
MADHAVPUR,TEHSIL- DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI A. S. GARG, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI SUNIL
VERMA AND MS. POORVA MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS)
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This order shall gover the disposal of all other 168 miscellaneous petitions as they have arisen out of the same order. 1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders dated 07.02.2019 and 20.09.2019 passed by the District Judge, Dhar in Land Acquisition Case(LAC) No.71 of 2018. Vide order dated 07.02.2019 the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 21 Rule 11 (2) of CPC, wherein the application filed by the respondent for execution of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.24848/2015 has been allowed and it is held that the petitioners are liable to make the payment of interest on the enhanced amount as directed by the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 20.09.2019, the executing court has granted last opportunity to the petitioner to make the payments.
32] The aforesaid application was filed by the Respondent before the Executing Court on the basis of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7974 of 2015 and in other connected appeals dated 17.09.2015, wherein the Supreme Court has modified the order passed by this Court and has enhanced the value of the acquired land for Auto Testing Track at Pithampur, district Dhar, to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs per hectare in respect of irrigated lands and Rs.45 lakhs per hectare towards the un-irrigated lands.
3] The case of the petitioners is that initially on 01.09.2006 a notification was published in the Official Gazette for acquisition of the lands for the purposes of Auto Testing Track and for establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ). On 16.06.2007 the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award and the market value was assessed @ Rs.2.15 lakhs per hectare in respect of un- irrigated lands and Rs.3.44 lakhs for irrigated land. He also awarded solatium under Section 23(2) @ 30% and under Section 23(1-A)(A) @ 12% towards additional development. The aforesaid award was challenged before the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.16 of 2011. The reference Court enhanced the amount from Rs.3.44 lakhs to Rs.48,92,630/- per hectare for irrigated land and from 2.15 lakhs to Rs.30,57,894/- per hectare for un-irrigated land after making the deduction of 65%.
4] The aforesaid order was also challenged before this Court in F.A. No.497 of 2012 along with other connected appeals, which 4 came to be decided on 19.12.2014. The High Court modified the said award and has reduced the deduction from 65% to 20%. Against the judgement passed by this Court in F.A. No.497/2012 and other connected appeals, both the parties approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7974 of 2015 and other connected appeals and the Supreme Court has disposed of the aforesaid appeals directing that the market value of the acquired irrigated land shall be Rs.60 lakhs per hectare and Rs.45 lakhs per hectare for un-irrigated land with all the statutory benefits. 5] The contention of the petitioners is that the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court takes care of all the other statutory benefits including the interest and solatium etc. and the petitioner is not required to pay any additional amount towards interest and solatium.
6] Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Supreme Court has quantified the compensation and has taken into account all the aspect of the matters and in such circumstances, no additional amount is required to be paid. Shri Jain has also submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court on 17.09.2015, has already been complied with by the State and even otherwise, for the period starting from 17.09.2015 till the date of payment, the petitioners are ready to pay the interest @ 15%. 7] To buttress his arguments, Shri Jain, has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12060 of 2017 dated 08.09.2017 in which also the Supreme Court had the 5 occasion to decide the valuation of the property in respect of the adjoining villages at Pithampur/Dhar, which proceedings were also in respect of the Auto Testing Track and in the said case the Supreme Court has made the following directions:-
"It is placed on record that the High Court has determined the total amount of Rs.28,44,999/- for irrigated land and Rs.18,96,666/- for un-irrigated land. From the aforesaid amount, 40 percent has to be deducted. Let compensation so worked out, along with statutory benefits, as aforesaid be paid within a period of three months from today.
The appeals preferred by the State are allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the appeals preferred by the owners stand dismissed.
No costs."
8] Thus, it is submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid decision clearly reveals that in the present case the Supreme Court has taken into account all the heads under which the amount is required to be paid and that is why the value of the irrigated land has been determined @ Rs.60 lakhs per hectare and Rs.45 lakhs per hectare for un-irrigated which is far more than the value of the adjoining lands. Shri Sunil Jain, Senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that even the land owners have filed execution proceedings after more than one year.
9] On the other hand, Shri A. S. Garg, Senior counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as a bare perusal of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court clearly reveals that the Supreme Court has awarded the amount of compensation @ Rs.60 lakhs per 6 hectare for irrigated land and Rs.45 lakhs per hectare for un- irrigated land and additionally, the other statutory benefits are also directed to be paid to the land owners.
10] Senior counsel for respondents has submitted that it is the wrong interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision to include all the heads under the compensation awarded to the land owners by the Supreme Court.
11] Shri Garg has also relied upon Section 23(1A) (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which refers to the matters to be considered in determining the compensation. Reliance is also placed upon Sections 28 and 34 of the Act which relates to payment of interest under certain conditions. Senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to para 34 of the High Court's decision in which the High Court has also directed the State to pay the amount along with interest and solatium as awarded by the Reference Court in the judgement which was under challenge before the High Court. 12] In support of his contention, Shri Garg, Senior counsel for the respondents has also relied upon certain decisions of Supreme Court as well as the High Court in the cases of Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha Jaipur Vs. Mahant Ram Niwas & Anr. reported as AIR 2008 SC 2187; Sunder Vs. Union of India reported as (2001) 7 SCC 211; Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate Now Called I.C.D.S. Ltd. Vs. Smithaben H. Patel (Smt.) and others reported as (1999) 3 SCC 80; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mulchand reported as (1973) MPLJ 832; and Govind Prasad 7 Saini Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and others reported as (2017) (1) MPLJ 322.
13] Shri Garg has also submitted that the decision in Civil Appeal No.12060 of 2017 dated 08.09.2017, relied upon by shri Sunil Jain, the Senior counsel for the petitioners has no application in the present case as it has been passed subsequently and has no relation to the lis involved between the parties. It is further submitted that the aforesaid decision can be a precedent, but the decision rendered earlier in the present case operates as res judicata, which is binding on the parties and the subsequent decision cannot be used to draw any kind of parity,which can only be used as a precedent. 14] In respect of the ground of delay in filing the execution proceedings,, Shri A.S. Garg, Senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the proceedings were initiated well within the period of limitation so there is no question of delay. 15] Shri Garg has also drawn the attention of this Court to the amount paid by the State in respect of other land owners, who have been given the entire amount including interest and solatium as directed by the Supreme Court in the present case. 16] Shri Jain, Senior counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has submitted in rebuttal that it is true that some land owners have been given the amount of interest and solatium in addition to the amount awarded by the Supreme Court, but as there are as many as 1100 land owners were involved, and if 51 persons have been wrongly sanctioned the awarded amount along with the interest and 8 solatium , the payment was withheld and even if the payment has been made, it would be recovered as is clearly averred by the petitioner in the rejoinder dated 03.11.2022. 17] Heard.
18] From the aforesaid factual aspects, it is apparent that initially the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was challenged before this Court in First Appeal No.497 of 2012 and other connected appeals for enhancement of the value of the land. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2014 has disposed of the aforesaid appeal along with other connected appeals. Para 5 of the same reads as under:-
"5. The Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred as 'LAO') by award dated 16.5.2007 assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.2.15 lakhs per hectare in respect of un-irrigated land and Rs.3.44 lakhs per hectare in respect of irrigated land. He was (sic) also awarded solatium under Section 23(2) @ of 30% and under Section 23(1-A) (A) @ of 12% towards additional development. However, the claimants (landowners) being dissatisfied with the award of LAO filed application under Section 18 of the Act, which in turns came to refer to the Court of jurisdiction ie., the Reference Court, the claimant filed their claim statements and stated that the market value of irrigated land of village - Akoliya & other villages, on the date of application was Rs.1 crore 30 lacs per hectare and market value of un-irrigated land was at the rate of Rs.86,00,000/- per hectare. It is also alleged that the LAO, Dhar on the basis of Collector guidelines for the last preceding three years assessed the market value and passed the award."
19] While allowing the aforesaid appeal, this Court has made the following observations:-
9"10. As the market value of the acquired lands had to be determined as on 11.8.2006, the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the reference Court after appreciating the statement of the landowners, witnesses of State Government, Nirmal Sharma and Tarunjeet Singh sale deed (Exhibit A/2), after deducting 65% as development charges from the market value of the land enhanced the amount compensation and awarded at the rate of Rs.30,57,894/- per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.48,92,630/- per hectare for irrigated land plus 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) (A) of the Act. The reference Court also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Act and 9% interest on enhanced amount under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking possession in case the amount of compensation is not deposited at enhanced ratewithin one year and after one year interest @ 15 % per annum.
34. In the result, all the appeals filed by the appellants - claimants/landowners are partly allowed. All the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment therein is modified to the extent that the land owners whose land were acquired for "Auto Testing Track" are entitled to claim compensation at the rate fixed by the reference Court in the impugned judgment, with a deduction of 20% instead of 65% on account of appreciation of market value. The same shall be worked out on the basis of rate determined by the reference Court along with interest and solatium as awarded by the reference Court in the impugned judgments."
20] The aforesaid award was again made subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7974 of 2015, which came to be disposed of on 17.09.2015 with the following observations:-
"16. Upon carefully perusing these judgment(s) 10 and order(s), in our opinion, it should satisfy the interest of both the parties and meet the ends of justice if we fix the market value of the acquired irrigated lands at Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) per hectare with all other statutory benefits, and fix the market value of the acquired un-irrigated lands at Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) per hectare with all other statutory benefits. In our opinion, that would be the fair market value for the lands acquired.
17. In the result, while disposing of these appeals, we now quantify the compensation that is required to be paid for the irrigated lands at Rs.60,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) per hectare with all statutory benefits, and Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) per hectare for the un-irrigated lands with all statutory benefits.
18. The State Government is directed to pay the difference of amount within four months' time from today without compelling the agriculturists to file any execution petitions before any forum."
21] It is apparent from the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court that the value of the land has been increased from Rs.48,92,630/- per hectare to Rs.60,00,000/- per hectare for irrigated land and from Rs.30,57,894/- per hectare to Rs.45,00,000/- per hectare for un- irrigated land without deducting any development charges and with all statutory benefits.
22] Thus, the question before this Court is whether the áll statutory benefits', as directed by the Supreme Court are in addition to the aforesaid amount of Rs.60 lakhs and Rs.45 lakhs respectively or included in the aforesaid amount.
23] In this regard, Shri Sunil Jain, Senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to a subsequent decision of the 11 Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.12060 of 2017 dated 08.09.2017 in respect of the agricultural land of the same area of District - Dhar and although the same has already been reproduced above, for the sake of convenience, it is once again reproduced as under:-
"It is placed on record that the High Court has determined the total amount of Rs.28,44,999/- for irrigated land and Rs.18,96,666/- for un-irrigated land. From the aforesaid amount, 40 percent has to be deducted. Let compensation so worked out, along with statutory benefits, as aforesaid be paid within a period of three months from today.
The appeals preferred by the State are allowed to the extent as indicated above, and the appeals preferred by the owners stand dismissed.
No costs."
24] A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly provides that the said amount has to be paid by the respondents therein along with statutory benefits, whereas in the order passed in the present case, the Supreme Court has referred the phrase, ''with all statutory benefits'. The difference of amount in both the cases is huge, but as the only question which has been raised before this court is that of the interpretation of the order of the Supreme Court, which has been passed between the same parties, this court may fruitfully rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, (2009) 17 SCC 231, the relevant paras of the same read as under:-
"1. This Court had, on 9-12-20031, framed a scheme and 12 laid down guidelines on the basis of which hawking was to be permitted in the city of Mumbai. These matters were then kept last week in order to oversee implementation. When these matters were listed last week, we were informed that some of the licensed hawkers had obtained from the Bombay High Court orders dated 16-4-2004 and 23-4-2004 wherein the Bombay High Court purports to interpret our abovementioned order. We do not intend to comment on the patently fallacious reasoning of the Bombay High Court. We clarify that the Bombay High Court orders shall no longer apply. On a plain reading of our order dated 9-12-2003 it is clear that the Bombay High Court has gone wrong.
2. We were also informed that one other party had also obtained an order from some other court in Mumbai. We, therefore, feel it necessary to clarify that this Court is framing a scheme for hawking. Thus only this Court will hereinafter deal with this aspect. No other court shall either interpret orders of this Court or pass any orders contrary to the orders of this Court. If any clarifications are required they must be obtained from this Court. Also if any party feels aggrieved by the effect of an order of this Court, then the remedy of that party will be to approach this Court for a clarification or variation."
` (emphasis supplied) 25] A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly reveals that the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of interpreting its own order by High Court regarding the implementation of its order between the same parties. In view of the same, this court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to interpret the order of the Supreme Court, and in such circumstances, the petitioner is directed to seek clarification of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.10912/2016 by the Supreme Court on 15.11.2016, and other order dated 17.09.2015 in C.A.No.7261-7262/2015 within ninety days from today.13
26] With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. 27] Needless to say, subject to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the District Judge, Dhar can proceed in accordance with law in the execution proceedings after the period of 90 days.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Pankaj Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANDEY Date: 2022.11.28 18:17:17 +05'30'