Madhya Pradesh High Court
S.Hardeep Singh vs The State Of M.P. & Ors on 3 January, 2013
F.A. 132/1996
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
FIRST APPEAL No. 132 of 1996
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA
Appellant : Hardeep Singh,
Plaintiff S/o Shri Gulab Singh,
Occupation Business,
C/o Rang Mahal Talkies,
T.T. Nagar, Bhopal
Versus
Respondents : 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
through the Secretary to Government
of Madhya Pradesh, Irrigation
Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal
2. The Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy
Collector, Old Secretariat, Bhopal,
3. The Collector, Bhopal District, Near Old
Secretariat, Bhopal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant by - Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate
Respondents by - Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(03/01/2013) The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.1995 passed by learned First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 5-B/93 whereby the suit of plaintiff for realization of an amount to the extent of ` 3,23, 527/- has been decreed but the claim for interest and cost of suit has been dismissed . F.A. 132/1996 2
2. The land in question of plaintiff-appellant was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act of 1894). The Land Acquisition Officer-defendant no.2 passed an award of ` 3,35,671/- (Rupees three lacs thirty five thousand six hundred and seventy one only) on 17.09.1990 which was affirmed by the Commissioner on 01.02.1991. Thereafter, requisite application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 was submitted for reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of the award. It is also an admitted fact that only a sum of ` 12, 144/- has been paid to the appellant despite the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of ` 3,35,671/-.
3. In the plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff- appellant that defendants are bound to pay a sum of ` 3, 35,671/- and the land of plaintiff which was acquired was recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record. Till coming into force of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act of 1976), the same was being used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, the acquired land does not come within the purview of the Act of 1976 and, hence, the competent authority under the Act of 1976 has no jurisdiction to declare the land as surplus in terms of the F.A. 132/1996 3 said Act. That apart, the land in question was never declared surplus under the Act of 1976 and for this reason also, the defendants are not having any authority to retain the amount of award as directed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, in the instant suit, the relief which has been claimed by the plaintiff-appellant is that the amount of award along with interest be paid to him.
4. The defendants-respondents by filing the written statement refuted the plaint averments and prayed that suit be dismissed.
5. The learned Trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties it was held by the Reference Court that defendants were not having any jurisdiction to retain the awarded sum of ` 3, 35,671/- for which the plaintiff was entitled and further without jurisdiction only paid an amount of ` 12,144/- to the plaintiff under the provisions of the Act of 1976. The learned Trial Court while deciding issues 1 to 4 further held that the land in question was never declared surplus under the Act of 1976 nor it was acquired under the said Act. In this view of the matter, it was held by learned Reference Court that defendants- respondents were not having any jurisdiction to retain the amount of ` 3, 35,671/- and directed the defendants F.A. 132/1996 4 that after deducting a sum of ` 12,144/-, the balance amount be paid to the plaintiff. The learned Reference Court in the impugned judgment and decree further held that the appellant-plaintiff may realize the amount in the execution proceedings under Order 21 CPC and thus passed a decree to the tune of ` 3, 23,527/-.
6. The State Government did not file any appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree and thus the said judgment and decree has attained finality against the respondents. However, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal for the grant of interest.
7. I have heard Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents and having heard them, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.
8. So fas the the passing of the award by the Reference Court for ` 3, 23, 527/- is concerned, it had attained finality since the respondents have not filed any appeal assailing the same. The only reason assigned by learned Reference Court for deferring the payment of interest which is mentioned in para 12 of the impugned judgment is that plaintiff in reference proceedings under Order 21 CPC may claim the interest. For ready reference, para 12 is quoted hereunder which reads thus:-
12."vc tgka rd C;kt vkSj okn O;; dk iz'u gS] okLro esa oknh fcuk ;g nkok is'k fd;s gq;s Hkh ,okMZ ds rgr F.A. 132/1996 5 fu/kkZfjr U;wure jkf'k eqvkots dh jsQzsUl dk;Zokgh esa vkns'k 21 lh-ih-lh- ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr olwy dj ldrs FksA blfy;s mldk ;g nkok vuko';d lqij¶yqvl gSA blfy;s og dksbZ C;kt ;k okn O;; olwy ikus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% eSa] okn fo"k; Øekad 4 oknh ds fo:) vkSj izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa fu.khZr djrk gwa¡A"""
9. To me, when an amount of ` 3, 35, 671/- (Rupees three lacs thirty five thousand six hundred and seventy one only) was not paid by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant-plaintiff and it was illegally retained and a sum of ` 12, 144/- (Rupees twelve thousand one hundred and forty four only) was only paid under the Act of 1976, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the interest in terms of Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Because the plaintiff is entitled to obtain compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and not under the Act of 1976, the judgment passed by the Reference Court and the decree is accordingly modified. Let the compensation amount of ` 3, 23, 527/- (Rupees three lacs twenty three thousand five hundred and twenty seven only) along with interest in terms of Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act be paid to the plaintiff.
10. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge F.A. 132/1996 6 rao