Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brijendra Nath Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-8193-2018
(BRIJENDRA NATH DWIVEDI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-04-2018
Shri M.P. Rajak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned GA for the respondents/State.
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the notice issued under section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation sh and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and e ad Land Acquisition Officer Tahsil Amarpatan to the respondent nos. 7 and 8 for appearance in respect of acquisition of the land and payment of compensation. Pr a The State Government has initiated the proceedings for hy acquisition of the land for construction of canal under the Ban Sagar ad Pariyojana Nahar. The Land Acquisition Officer has issued notices to the recorded land owners. One of the notice has been issued to the M respondent nos. 7 and 8 for acquisition of the land survey no. 143/1 of and 143/2 total area of 3.296 hectares.
The contention of the petitioner is that he has filed a civil suit rt seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the land ou survey nos. 139/1 ka, area 0.405 hectares, 139/3 area 0.257 hectares, C 140 area 0.053 hectares, 141 area 0.129 hectares, 143/1 area 0.764 hectares, 143/2 area 1.688 hectares total 3.296 hectares against the h ig respondent nos. 7, 8 and other defendants therefore, the Land H Acquisition Officer be restrained to disburse the amount of compensation. Petitioner has already submitted the representation to the Land Acquisition Officer on 29/03/2016 that till decision in the civil suit, the amount be not distributed to the respondent nos. 7 and 8.
Vide notice (Annexure P/4) the Land Acquisition Officer has directed respondent nos. 7 and 8 to appear alongwith documents like khasra receipts, electricity bill etc. for assumption of the compensation. It is settled law that the registered owners of the land are entitled to get the compensation for acquisition of their land. The petitioner filed the suit in the year 2014 seeking declaration that he is owner of the land. The said declaration has not been granted so far. The petitioner has not disclosed in this petition that whether he has filed any application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC before the trial Court or not?
It appears from Annexure P/5 that amount has already been assessed and deposited in the account of respondent nos. 7 and 8. Once the amount has been assessed and deposited in the account of respondent nos. 7 and 8 then no injunction can be granted against the bank and the respondent nos. 7 and 8 for withdrawal of the said amount.
sh Hence no interference is called for.
e The petition is, therefore, dismissed without issuing notice to the ad respondents.
Pr (VIVEK RUSIA)
a
JUDGE
hy
ad
Digitally signed by NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
M
Date: 2018.04.20 10:59:30 +05'30' navin of rt ou C h ig H