Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Unkar on 14 January, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MP 31

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          F.A. No. 1121/2019
     State of M.P. Through Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Dhar
                     & another V/s. Unkar S/o. Jalam.
                                  -: 1 :-

Indore, dated : 14.01.2020
              Shri Pawan Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
appellants/State.
              None for the respondent though served.
              Heard on the question of admission.
                             JUDGMENT

Appellants/State have filed the present appeal u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act being aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in Land Acquisition Case No. 11-07/2015 by which the compensation @ Rs.10,50,000/- per Hect. of land has been assessed for irrigated land belonging to the respondent bearing Survey No.237/2 and 280/4 total area 0.231 Hect.

2. State of Madhya Pradesh initiated the proceedings for land acquisition for construction of "Daulatpura Reservoir". Notification u/s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Official Gazette on 9.1.2009 for acquisition of aforesaid land of the respondent which is coming under the submergence of Daulatpura Reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award dated 8.3.2010 assessing the compensation @ Rs.1,48,315/- per Hect. for un-irrigated land Rs.2,68,869/- per Hect. for irrigated land. The respondent/land owner being dissatisfied with the award sought a reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was referred to the District Judge for adjudication and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.11-07/2015.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH F.A. No. 1121/2019 State of M.P. Through Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Dhar & another V/s. Unkar S/o. Jalam.

3. The respondent appeared before the Addl. District Judge and examined himself as P.W.1. The Sub Divisional Officer also appeared and examined himself as D.W.1. According to the respondent, his land came into the submergence of Daulatpura Reservoir and before it, he was using the same as agricultural land and was earning his livelihood. The land in question is situated 7 Kms. from Indore- Ahmedabad National Highway. The nearby lands have been developed and, therefore, the market value of the land has been enhanced. There is a connectivity with the schools, bank and commercial area, therefore, he ought to have been paid the compensation @ Rs.30,00,000/- per Hect. In support of his claim, he has produced copy of the award dated 8.3.2010; copy of sale-deeds (Ex. P/2 and P/3); and copy of Collector- guidelines for the year 2002-03 (Ex. P/4) in respect of valuation of tree, tube-well, house, etc. The respondent also produced the copy of award passed by Addl. District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar dated 4.5.2016 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.29/2015 (Jassibai, Tarabai V/s. State of M.P.) as Ex. P/5, in which, the land was acquired for the same Reservoir and compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per Hect. was assessed for un- irrigated land.

4. Learned Addl. District Judge by placing reliance over the aforesaid has passed the impugned award by directing the appellants to pay the compensation @ Rs.10,50,000/- per Hect. to the respondent, hence the present appeal before this Court.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH F.A. No. 1121/2019 State of M.P. Through Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Dhar & another V/s. Unkar S/o. Jalam.

5. I have heard Shri Pawan Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellants/State and perused the record. The State Government had accepted award dated 4.5.2016 (Ex. P/5) passed in the similar case and paid the compensation to land owner. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that he has verified that the aforesaid award has not been challenged by the State Government by way of First Appeal before this Court. The land of the present respondent was acquired for the same "Daulatpura Reservoir" and for which the learned Addl. District Judge had already assessed the compensation payable for irrigated and un-irrigated land. Therefore, the State Government cannot discriminate between similarly situated persons. Once the State Government has accepted the award in similar case, the State Government cannot be permitted to challenge this award passed for the land acquired for the same project.

6. That the respondent sought the reference for enhancement of compensation, then the burden was upon him to prove his case by adducing reliable evidence and also to establish that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value. In case of Basant Kumar v/s Union of India : (1996) 11 SCC 542; Special Land Acquisition Officer v/s Karigowda : (2010) 5 SCC 708 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v/s Sharadaben : (1996) 8 SCC 93, the apex Court has held that it is for the appellant to prove his case THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH F.A. No. 1121/2019 State of M.P. Through Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Dhar & another V/s. Unkar S/o. Jalam.

if he is claiming enhancement of a compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinize the evidence and apply the test of prudent and willing purchaser whether he would be willing to purchase in market the said very land. In the case of Hookiyar Singh v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer : (1996) 3 SCC 766, it has been held that the Court must not indulge in the feats of imagination but consider the very fact that the prudent purchaser in open market is ready to purchase the said land at the rate claimed by the claimants. It has also been held by the apex Court in the case of G.Narayan Rao v/s Land Acquisition Officer : (1996) 10 SCC 607 that the claimants must establish that at the time of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1984, any buyer or purchaser were available. The similar view has been followed in the case of State of U.P. v/s Ram Kumari Devi :

(1996) 8 SCC 577. In the case of Gujrat Industrial Development Corporation v/s Narottambhai Morarbhai :

(1996) 11 SCC 159, the apex Court has observed that the criteria and rate for sale of small piece of land and big area of the land are always different. The small plots are easily saleable at higher rate; whereas the large area of the plots do not get the higher rates. Therefore, while assessing the compensation, the Reference Court has applied mind and rightly enhanced the compensation.

7. For the purpose of calculation of compensation and to arrive fair market value of agricultural land various facts and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH F.A. No. 1121/2019 State of M.P. Through Collector (Land Acquisition Officer), Dhar & another V/s. Unkar S/o. Jalam.

circumstances of the case are liable to be considerd by the court. The Court must exercise its discretion by adopting different methods; like (a) Sales statistics method; (b) Capitalisation of net income method; and (c) Agricultural yield basis method as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v/s Karigowda : (2010) 5 SCC 708.

8. The learned reference Court has not committed any illegality in enhancing the amount of compensation in light of the above judgement passed by the Apex Court.

9. I do not find any perversity in the Award passed by the Reference Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Date: 2020.01.18 12:16:16 +05'30'