Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Leelabai And 5 Anr. vs Sita Bai And 6 Ors. on 19 December, 2014
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(DIVISION BENCH OF HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI P.K.
JAISWAL & HON'BLE SMT. S.R. WAGHMARE, JJ.)
First Appeal No.497/2012
Subhas son of Kashiram
Caste - Dhakad
R/o. Village Sagore Tehsil
& District - Dhar.
V/s.
State of M.P. through Collector -
Land Acquisition Officer, Dist -
Dhar M.P.
2. General Manager District
Business and Industries
Center.
*************************************************************************************
Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate with Shri J.
Verma, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the
respondents - State.
*************************************************************************************
JUDGMENT
(19.12.2014) Per P.K. JAISWAL, J : -
The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of following connected appeals of land acquired of villages - Madhavpur, Asukhedi, Kalyancikhedi, Piplya, Suhagpura, Khandwa, Sagore and Godgaon of Tehsil & District Dhar (M.P.).
2 No.1 Village Madhavpur Sr.No. F.A.Nos. Name of the parties Valuation Court fees of the paid appeal 498@2012 Kanhiyalal v/s. State of M.P. & 41249334 150000 1. Anr. 2. 505@2012 Ramratan v/s. State of M.P. & 23641052 150000 Anr. 3. 506@2012 Dinesh & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & 23730693 150000 Anr. 4. 507@2012 Gazibai v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 64445175 150000 508@2012 Nandkishore & Ors. v/s. State of 2494980 138850 5. M.P. & Anr. 6. 509@2012 Laxman v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 32963610 150000 7. 510@2012 Jashodabai & Ors. v/s. State of 60501014 150000 M.P. & Anr. 511@2012 Leeladhar v/s. State of M.P. & 31792315 150000 8. Anr. 9. 512@2012 Narendra Singh & Anr. v/s. State 232812969 150000 of M.P. & Anr. 10 513@2012 Radheysham v/s. State of M.P. & 49800988 150000 . Anr. 11 514@2012 Rajendra v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 40559105 150000 . 12 515@2012 Kanhiyalal & Ors. v/s. State of 120269968 150000 . M.P. & Anr. 13 516@2012 Gangadhar v/s. State of M.P. & 6454079 150000 . Anr. 14 517@2012 Naseembee & Anr. v/s. State of 40128835 150000 . M.P. & Anr. 15 518@2012 Antar Singh & Ors. v/s. State of 1090620 97718 . M.P. & Anr. 16 519@2012 Ashok & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & 4063679 150000 . Anr. 17 520@2012 Radheyshyam v/s. State of M.P. 29357096 150000 . & Anr. 18 521@2012 Hukumchand v/s. State of M.P. 13278670 150000 . & Anr. 19 522@2012 Kanhiyalal v/s. State of M.P. & 158349034 150000 . Anr. 20 523@2012 Kailash & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 86541430 150000 3 & Anr. 21 524@2012 Abdul v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 3824639 150000 . 22 525@2012 Ramkishan v/s. State of M.P. & 37284258 150000 . Anr. 23 526@2012 Keshar Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 50261140 150000 . Anr. 24 527@2012 Jagdish & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 64743973 150000 . & Anr. 25 528@2012 Vishnu & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. 107615790 150000 . & Anr. 26 529@2012 Irshad v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 6717023 150000 .
27 530@2012 Vishnu & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & 27250555 150000 . Anr.
28 531@2012 Qamruddin v/s. State of M.P. & 25532457 150000 . Anr.
29 532@2012 Girdhari v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 59831702 150000 .
30 533@2012 Vijay Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 12340438 150000 . Anr.
31 534@2012 Ghisalal & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 52319873 150000 . & Anr.
32 535@2012 Shantibai v/s. State of M.P. & 70863396 150000 . Anr. 33 536@2012 Mahadev Bharti & Ors. v/s. State 38560135 150000 . of M.P. & Anr.
34 537@2012 Soni Bai v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 29258491 150000 .
35 538@2012 Nandram v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 21857217 150000 .
36 539@2012 Savjiram v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 16000738 150000 .
37 540@2012 Mansingh v/s. State of M.P. & 179767015 150000
. Anr.
38 541@2012 Bulbul @ Charansingh v/s. State 34039290 150000
. of M.P. & Anr.
39 542@2012 Hari Ram v/s. State of M.P. & 74628276 150000
4
Anr.
40 543@2012 Rajendra & Ors. v/s. State of 105183560 150000
. M.P. & Anr.
41 544@2012 Jagdish v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 21370172 150000
.
42 545@2012 Mukesh & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 55188352 150000
. & Anr.
43 546@2012 Vishnu v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 90748533 150000
.
44 547@2012 Meerabai v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 11399218 150000 .
45 548@2012 Suresh & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 32485531 150000 . & Anr. 46 549@2012 Gangaram v/s. State of M.P. & 31556263 150000 . Anr. 47 550@2012 Krishna & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. 5931179 150000 . & Anr. 48 551@2012 Hem Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 15373258 150000 . Anr. 49 552@2012 Ramgopal v/s. State of M.P. & 49780072 150000 . Anr. 50 553@2012 Banshilal v/s. State of M.P. & 15860301 150000 . Anr. 51 554@2012 Jafruddin v/s. State of M.P. & 25532457 150000 . Anr. 52 555@2012 Ratan Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 218040300 150000 . Anr. 53 556@2012 Ray Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 209422909 150000 . Anr. 54 557@2012 Sugan v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 9994859 150000 . 55 558@2012 Babulal v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 121895440 150000 .
56 559@2012 Bansilal v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 78805499 150000 .
57 560@2012 Murli v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 66258889 150000 .
58 561@2012 Mahesh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 48979288 150000
5
59 562@2012 Maansingh v/s. State of M.P. & 4691159 150000
. Anr.
60 563@2012 Narendra Singh v/s. State of M.P. 16995741 150000
. & Anr.
61 564@2012 Bhagwan v/s. State of M.P. & 10634290 150000
. Anr.
62 565@2012 Reshambai v/s. State of M.P.. 24979676 150000
.
63 566@2012 Sunita Bai & Ors. v/s. State of 16613277 150000
. M.P. & Anr.
64 567@2012 Savav Kha & Ors. v/s. State of 108691470 150000
. M.P. & Anr.
65 568@2012 Ramesh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 15851337 150000
.
66 572@2012 Ramesh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 20987709 150000
.
67 573@2012 Atmaram v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 9068579 150000
.
68 574@2012 Kantibai v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 24979676 150000 .
69 575@2012 Iqbal & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & 29372036 150000 Anr.
.
70 576@2012 Rahis Khan v/s. State of M.P. & 15328438 150000
. Anr.
71 577@2012 Ramchandra v/s. State of M.P. & 27501547 150000
. Anr.
72 578@2012 Saurambai v/s. State of M.P. & 8987902 150000
. Anr.
73 579@2012 Rambaksh & Ors. v/s. State of 50754160 150000
. M.P. & Anr.
74 580@2012 Dharmendra v/s. State of M.P. & 18477789 150000
. Anr.
75 581@2012 Ramgopal v/s. State of M.P. & 75835428 150000
. Anr.
76 582@2012 Suresh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 48955384 150000
.
77 583@2012 Irshad v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 15328438 150000
6
78 584@2012 Narsingh thr. LR's Ramesh & 19105269 150000
. Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr.
79 585@2012 Kailash v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 22027532 150000 .
80 586@2012 Radheyshyam v/s. State of M.P. 13395202 150000 & Anr.
.
81 588@2012 Mohan & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & 20826357 150000 . Anr.
82 589@2012 Madhusudan v/s. State of M.P. & 22663977 150000 . Anr. 83 590@2012 Mohan v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 70612404 150000 . 84 591@2012 Dariyav Singh v/s. State of M.P. 109934478 150000 . & Anr. 85 592@2012 Madan Lal v/s. State of M.P. & 58206230 150000 . Anr. 86 593@2012 Mahesh & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 32461627 150000 . & Anr. 87 594@2012 Deubai v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 132096470 150000 . 88 595@2012 Devi Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 15489789 150000 . Anr. 89 596@2012 Ramibai & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 2181240 130438 . & Anr. 90 597@2012 Ramchandra v/s. State of M.P. & 24576296 150000 . Anr. 91 598@2012 Mohan Singh & Ors. v/s. State of 69459038 150000 . M.P. & Anr. 92 599@2012 Rajesh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 6558659 150000 . 93 600@2012 Madan Lal v/s. State of M.P. & 143621184 150000 . Anr. 94 601@2012 Omprakash v/s. State of M.P. & 13171102 150000 . Anr. 95 602@2012 Mohan Singh v/s. State of M.P. & 3489983 150000 . Anr.
96 603@2012 Santosh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 19983741 150000 7 97 604@2012 Kalabai & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. 14551558 150000 . & Anr.
98 605@2012 Radheyshyam v/s. State of M.P. 32395891 150000 . & Anr. 99 606@2012 Ramchandra & Anr. v/s. State of 9137302 150000 . M.P. & Anr. 10 607@2012 Rahis v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 30456680 150000 0. 10 614@2012 Nandkishore & Anr. v/s. State of 63680245 150000 1. M.P. & Anr. 10 615@2012 Suresh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 19983741 150000 2. 10 616@2012 Ramchandra thru. LR's 32389915 150000
3. Leeladhar & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr.
10 617@2012 Shantabai & Ors. v/s. State of 22882100 150000
4. M.P. & Anr.
10 635@2012 Hemlata & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. 16538578 150000
5. & Anr.
10 636@2012 Hukum v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 37481466 150000
6. 10 637@2012 Ramchandra & Ors. v/s. State of 53544951 150000
7. M.P. & Anr.
10 638@2012 Deced. Badrilal thru. LR's 116908469 150000
8. Hariram & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr.
10 639@2012 Lal Singh thu. LR's Anup Singh 31896895 150000
9. & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 11 640@2012 Ambaram v/s. State of M.P. & 34122955 150000
0. Anr.
11 641@2012 Ramratan & Ors. v/s. State of 30268436 150000
1. M.P. & Anr.
11 642@2012 Vishnu & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. 73815540 150000
2. & Anr.
11 643@2012 Vishnu & Ors. v/s. State of M.P. 149400 17930
3. & Anr.
11 644@2012 Ramratan & Ors. v/s. State of 30268436 150000
4. M.P. & Anr.
811 651@2012 Sodrabai v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 7003871 150000
5. 11 652@2012 Ramratan v/s. State of M.P. & 88154949 150000
6. Anr.
11 655@2012 Santosh v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 3346559 150000
7. 11 656@2012 Gangabai v/s. State of M.P. & 6244919 150000
8. Anr.
11 1014@2012 Badrilal & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. 14671078 150000
9. & Anr.
12 1015@2012 Braj Lal v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. 14686018 150000
0. P.T.O. 9 No.2 Village Asukhedi.
Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the parties Valuatio- Court By Court
n at the fees amen- fees paid
time of payable dment as per
presenta- reduc- amended
tion of ed the valuation
appeal valuat-
ion of
appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 597@2014 Rajendra v/s. State of MP 9681119 150000 50000 6000
& Anr.
2. 600@2014 Deepak v/s. State of MP. 11951998 150000 50000 6000
3. 602@2014 Ramchandra v/s. State of 7499879 150000 50000 6000
MP.
4. 605@2014 Dhanibai v/s. State of MP. 24979676 150000 50000 6000
5. 606@2014 Shivnarayan v/s. State of 33274363 150000 50000 6000
MP.
6. 610@2014 Ramchand v/s. State of 15462898 150000 50000 6000
MP.
7. 611@2014 Chandraprakash v/s. 70994868 150000 50000 6000
State of MP.
8. 615@2014 Mangilal v/s. State of MP. 114500142 150000 50000 6000
9. 616@2014 Satyanarayan v/s. State 35067162 150000 50000 6000
of MP.
10. 620@2014 Ramgopal v/s. State of 35186682 150000 50000 6000
MP.
11. 621@2014 Mangilal v/s. State of MP. 25983644 150000 50000 6000
12. 622@2014 Purushottam v/s. State of 35067162 150000 50000 6000
MP.
13. 623@2014 Rama v/s. State of MP. 121623532 150000 50000 6000
14. 624@2014 Chhogalal v/s. State of 24606176 150000 50000 6000
MP.
15. 625@2014 Savjiram v/s. State of MP. 12265738 150000 50000 6000
16. 626@2014 Shriram v/s. State of MP. 12250798 150000 50000 6000
17. 627@2014 Suresh v/s. State of MP. 23234684 150000 50000 6000
10
18. 630@2014 Purushottam v/s. State of 67752889 150000 50000 6000
MP.
19. 631@2014 Ratanlal v/s. State of MP. 21561404 150000 50000 6000
20. 635@2014 Shardabai v/s. State of 43911641 150000 50000 6000
MP.
21. 636@2014 Hemsingh v/s. State of 23234684 150000 50000 6000
MP.
22. 637@2014 Ramibai v/s. State of MP. 13729858 150000 50000 6000
23. 638@2014 Kanhiyalal v/s. State of 20868189 150000 50000 6000
MP.
24. 639@2014 Murarilal v/s. State of MP. 7036739 150000 50000 6000
25. 644@2014 Ramlal v/s. State of MP. 6764831 150000 50000 6000
26. 648@2014 Ratan v/s. State of MP. 15612298 150000 50000 6000
27. 649@2014 Kanahaiyalal v/s. State of 15612298 150000 50000 6000
MP.
28. 652@2014 Surajbai v/s. State of MP. 42348917 150000 50000 6000
29. 700@2014 Manish v/s. State of MP. 32315216 150000 50000 6000
30. 739@2014 Savjiram (decd. Thr.LRs 80918015 150000 50000 6000
Vishnu v/s. State of MP.
31. 832@2014 Tukaram v/s. State of MP. 3451140 150000 50000 6000
32. 833@2014 Mangilal v/s. State of MP. 2181240 130438 50000 6000
33. 834@2014 Samandar Singh v/s. 78990756 150000 50000 6000
State of MP.
34. 835@2014 Ramprasad v/s. State of 8426159 150000 50000 6000
MP.
P.T.O.
11
No.3 Village Kalyancikhedi Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the Valuation Court By Court parties at the fees amen- fees paid time of payable dment as per presenta- reduced amended tion of the valuation appeal valuati-
on of appeal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 456@2014 Babulal v/s. State of 23000 2760 5497919 150000 MP.
2. 457@2014 Rajaram v/s. State of 169000 20280 25248597 150000 MP.
3. 458@2014 Madan v/s. State of 5800 696 1386432 106593 MP.
4. 459@2014 Madanlal v/s. State 33400 4008 4989959 150000 of MP.
5. 460@2014 Ramchandra v/s. 229000 27480 34212595 150000 State of MP.
6. 461@2014 Radheyshyam v/s. 140000 10512 33465594 150000 State of MP.
7. 462@2014 Bhagwan v/s. State 169000 20280 5497919 150000 of MP.
8. 463@2014 Ayodhyabai v/s. 31000 2720 7410239 150000 State of MP.
9. 464@2014 Deced. Girdhari thru. 53300 6396 12740830 150000 LR's Yashwant v/s.
State of MP.
1 465@2014 Kailash v/s. State of 42000 5040 7649279 150000
0. MP.
1 466@2014 Deced. Kashiram 87600 10512 5871419 150000
1. thru LR's Santosh v/s. State of MP.
1 467@2014 Mangilal v/s. State of 152000 18240 36334074 150000
2. MP.
1 468@2014 Tejram v/s. State of 77000 9240 18406077 150000
3. MP.
1 469@2014 Shaitanbai v/s. State 9000 1080 2151360 129540
4. of MP.
1 470@2014 Sodrabai v/s. State 27000 3240 65544079 150000
5. of MP.
1 471@2014 Rameshwar v/s. 12000 1440 2868480 150000
6. State of MP.
1 472@2014 Vishanu v/s. State of 42000 5040 10039678 150000 12 MP.
1 473@2014 Decd. Laxminarayan 148300 17796 22156017 150000
8. thro. LR's Makhan v/s. State of MP.
1 474@2014 Deced. Bherulal 171000 20520 40875833 150000
9. thru. LR's Vikram v/s. State of MP.
2 475@2014 Rameshwar v/s. 22500 2700 5378399 150000
0. State of MP.
13 No.4 Village Piplya Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the parties Valuatio-n Court By Court at the time fees amend fees paid of payabl m-ent as per presentat- e reduced amended ion of the valuation appeal valuatio n of appeal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 272@2013 Radhabai & Ors. v/s. 16068717 150000 64000 7680 . State of MP & Anr. 2 273@2013 Dariyav Singh v/s. State 40397758 150000 92000 11040 . of MP & Anr. 3 274@2013 Swati v/s. State of MP & 40397758 150000 20900 2600 . Anr. 4 275@2013 Ranchhod v/s. State of 19124094 150000 91900 11028 . MP & Anr. 5 276@2013 Badrilal v/s. State of MP 15386859 150000 62700 7524 . & Anr. 6 277@2013 Rameshchandra v/s. 21742982 150000 86600 10392 . State of MP & Anr. 7 278@2013 Dhaniram v/s. State of 71781409 150000 370000 44400 . MP & Anr. 8 280@2013 Bhagwantibai v/s. State 19107370 150000 160000 19200 . of MP & Anr. 9 281@2013 Babukha v/s. State of 4870830 150000 19400 2328 . MP & Anr. 1 283@2013 Banesingh v/s. State of 1004295 150000 4000 480 0 MP & Anr. . 1 284@2013 Meherban Singh v/s. 24705652 150000 98400 11808 1 State of MP & Anr. . 1 285@2013 Bhulibai v/s. State of 7861828 150000 41800 5016 2 MP & Anr. . 1 286@2013 Inder Singh v/s. State of 46406440 150000 208900 25068 3 MP & Anr. . 1 287@2013 Narayan Singh v/s. 32288078 150000 128600 15432 4 State of MP & Anr. . 1 288@2013 Mangilal v/s. State of 27045082 150000 118100 14172 5 MP & Anr. . 14 1 291@2013 Haider & Ors v/s. State 119421 14331 1000 120 6 of MP & Anr. . 1 293@2013 Babu Singh & Ors. v/s. 60789583 150000 265400 31848 7 State of MP & Anr. .
1 298@2013 Dhan Singh v/s. State of 27542785 150000 109700 13164 8 MP & Anr.
.
1 301@2013 Umrao Singh & Ors v/s. 26237202 150000 104500 12540 9 State of MP & Anr.
.
2 303@2013 Chater Singh v/s. State 78998057 150000 325600 39072 0 of MP & Anr.
.
2 306@2013 Hari Singh v/s. State of 6986132 150000 151500 18180 1 MP.
.
2 307@2013 Jagdish v/s. State of MP 27291711 150000 108700 13044 2 & Anr.
.
2 312@2013 Jatanbai & Ors. v/s. 63242289 150000 304900 36588 3 State of MP & Anr.
.
2 317@2013 Apsarabai v/s. State of 39619430 150000 157800 18936 4 MP & Anr.
.
2 319@2013 Pawan & Ors. v/s. State 9983601 150000 83600 10032 5 of MP & Anr.
.
2 322@2013 Prem Singh v/s. State of 14687811 150000 58500 7020 6 MP & Anr.
.
2 327@2013 Lakhan Singh & Anr. 12143825 150000 40900 4908 7 v/s. State of MP & Anr.
.
2 329@2013 Umravbai v/s. State of 51014478 150000 221800 26616 8 MP & Anr.
.
2 330@2013 Antar Singh v/s. State 1659953 114798 13900 1668 9 of MP & Anr.
.
3 331@2013 Meharban Singh v/s. 27517678 150000 109600 13152 0 State of MP & Anr.
.
153 332@2013 Laxmibai v/s. State of 6484673 150000 116100 13932 1 MP & Anr.
.
3 333@2013 Heerabai thru.guardian 40397758 150000 83600 10032 2 Radhabai v/s. State of . MP & Anr. 3 334@2013 Mohan Singh v/s. State 141957070 150000 565400 64578 3 of MP & Anr. . 3 335@2013 Suner Singh v/s. State 40397758 150000 128500 15420 4 of MP & Anr. . 3 336@2013 Roop Singh v/s. State 24429471 150000 97300 11676 5 of MP & Anr. . 3 337@2013 Chander Singh v/s. 19025271 150000 76300 9156 6 State of MP & Anr. . 3 338@2013 Parvat Singh v/s. State 8436076 150000 33600 4032 7 of MP & Anr. . 3 339@2013 Ramabai v/s. State of 5111221 150000 42800 5136 8 MP & Anr. . 3 340@2013 Haider & Ors. v/s. State 24253719 150000 96600 11592 9 of MP & Anr. . 4 341@2013 Saied v/s. State of MP 4845722 150000 19300 2316 0 & Anr. . 4 342@2013 Amit Kumar v/s. State 22596633 150000 90000 10800 1 of MP & Anr. . 4 343@2013 Omprakash & Ors. v/s. 883716 86860 7400 888 2 State of MP & Anr. . 4 344@2013 Gheesa v/s. State of MP 23952431 150000 95400 11448 3 & Anr . 4 345@2013 Madu v/s. State of MP & 26330936 150000 107600 12912 4 Anr. . 4 346@2013 Umrav Singh v/s. State 859832 85188 7200 864 5 16 of MP & Anr. 4 347@2013 Sattar Kha v/s. State of 4845722 150000 19300 2316 6 MP & Anr. . 4 348@2013 Subhash v/s. State of 18805420 150000 74900 8988 7 MP & Anr. . 4 349@2013 Gena Bai v/s. State of 8285432 150000 33000 3960 8 MP & Anr. .
4 350@2013 Krishna Bai v/s. State of 28346221 150000 112900 13548 9 MP & Anr.
.
5 351@2013 Karan Singh v/s. State 37654939 150000 150500 18060 0 of MP & Anr.
.
5 353@2013 Rahim Kha v/s. State of 4845722 150000 19300 2316 1 M.P. .
5 354@2013 Saurambai v/s. State of 40397758 150000 23000 2760 2 MP & Anr.
.
5 355@2013 Vishnu Prasad v/s. 50557681 150000 202100 24252 3 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 356@2013 Ramlal & Anr. v/s. State 33924986 150000 157300 18876 4 of MP & Anr.
.
5 357@2013 Sitaram & Ors. v/s. 50557681 150000 60600 7272 5 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 358@2013 Ramkishan v/s. State of 40397758 150000 160900 19308 6 MP & Anr.
.
5 364@2013 Gajanand v/s. State of 58908650 150000 236200 28344 7 MP & Anr.
.
5 365@2013 Rajesh thru. Guardian 26237202 150000 104500 12540 8 Apsara Bai v/s. State of MP & Anr.
.
5 366@2013 Omprakash v/s. State of 34842914 150000 139300 16716 9 MP & Anr.
.
176 367@2013 Radhabai v/s. State of 27844073 150000 110900 13308 0 MP & Anr.
.
6 368@2013 Mohan Singh v/s. State 42793845 150000 201800 24216 1 of MP & Anr.
.
6 369@2013 Habib Kha v/s. State of 4870830 150000 19400 2328 2 MP & Anr.
.
6 370@2013 Rameshchandra v/s. 75883389 150000 304700 36564 3 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 371@2013 Surendra Singh v/s. 38313847 150000 152600 18312 4 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 372@2013 Ranjeet Singh v/s. State 4192931 150000 16700 2004 5 of MP & Anr.
.
6 373@2013 Kashiram v/s. State of 14354411 150000 120200 14424 6 MP & Anr.
.
6 374@2013 Radhabai v/s. State of 34095800 150000 135800 16296 7 MP & Anr.
.
6 832@2013 Pramodh Sharda v/s. 13131155 150000 52300 6276 8 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 1010@2013 Deced. Radheyshayam 26161880 150000 104200 12504
9 thro. LR's Jitendra
Singh & Ors. v/s. State
. of MP & Anr.
18
P.T.O.
19
No.5 Village Suhagpura
Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the parties Valuation at Court By Court
the time of fees amen- fees paid
presentati- payable dment as per
on of appeal reduced amended
the valuation
valuati-
on of
appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 158@2013 Qamruddin v/s. State 46574171 150000 185500 22260
of MP & Anr.
2. 159@2013 Girjabai v/s. State of 9716552 150000 38700 4644
MP & Anr.
3. 161@2013 Ratanbai v/s. State of 14311201 150000 57000 6840
MP.
4. 162@2013 Habib Kha v/s. State 25460570 150000 213200 25584
of MP & Anr.
5. 163@2013 Sugrabai v/s. State of 5774695 150000 23000 2760
MP & Anr.
6. 164@2013 Jainabai v/s. State of 3138421 150000 12500 1500
MP & Anr.
7. 165@2013 Madhusudan v/s. 96416969 150000 389000 46680
State of MP & Anr.
8. 166@2013 Dinesh v/s. State of 141537840 150000 1185200 100556
MP & Anr.
9. 169@2013 Devubai v/s. State of 41979523 150000 167200 20064
MP & Anr.
10. 170@2013 Hukum Singh v/s. 20989761 150000 83600 10032
State of MP & Anr.
11. 171@2013 Kamlabai v/s. State of 5247440 150000 20900 20900
MP & Anr.
12. 172@2013 Rita Devi v/s. State of 5247440 150000 20900 2508
MP & Anr.
13. 173@2013 Shankar v/s. State of 20889332 150000 83200 9984
MP & Anr.
14. 177@2013 Umrao Singh v/s. 27542785 150000 109700 13164
State of MP & Anr.
15. 178@2013 Sitabai v/s. State of 36732082 150000 146300 17556
MP & Anr.
20
16. 179@2013 Jafaruddin v/s. State 46574171 150000 185500 22260
of MP & Anr.
17. 180@2013 Mangilal v/s. State of 30379918 150000 121000 14520
MP & Anr.
18. 181@2013 Bhagwanti Bai v/s. 15164851 150000 60400 7248
State of MP & Anr.
19. 182@2013 Kamal v/s. State of 20914439 150000 83300 9996
MP & Anr.
20. 183@2013 Keshar Singh & Ors. 13633302 150000 54300 6516
v/s. State of MP & Anr.
21. 184@2013 Kamlabai v/s. State of 31484642 150000 125400 15048
MP & Anr.
22. 185@2013 Roop Singh & Ors. 34504576 150000 137900 16548
v/s. State of MP & Anr.
23. 186@2013 Shantabai v/s. State 13131155 150000 52300 6276
of MP & Anr.
24. 187@2013 Ratan Singh v/s. State 26287416 150000 104700 12564
of MP & Anr.
25. 188@2013 Shankar & Ors. v/s. 72585407 150000 289100 34692
State of MP & Anr.
26. 189@2013 Shankar Singh v/s. 15742321 150000 62700 7524
State of MP & Anr.
27. 212@2013 Leeladhar v/s. State 26237202 150000 104500 12540
of MP & Anr.
28. 213@2013 Nirbhay Singh v/s. 74005584 150000 300000 36000
State of MP & Anr.
29. 214@2013 Shankar v/s. State of 15742321 150000 62700 7524
MP & Anr.
30. 215@2013 Subhash & Anr. v/s. 7532211 150000 35000 4200
State of MP & Anr.
31. 216@2013 Deced. Vishram thru. 37008263 150000 147400 17688
LR's Ramesh v/s.
State of MP & Anr.
32. 217@2013 Madan v/s. State of 14963993 150000 59600 7152
MP & Anr.
33. 218@2013 Anubai v/s. State of 26237202 150000 104500 12540
21
MP & Anr.
34. 219@2013 Rabiya Bee v/s. State 28597294 150000 113900 13668
of MP & Anr.
35. 220@2013 Gabbu & Anr. v/s. 57746951 150000 230000 27600
State of MP & Anr.
36. 221@2013 Deced. Revabai thr. 41728449 150000 166200 19944
LR's Shankar Singh &
Ors. v/s. State of MP
& Anr.
37. 241@2013 Atmaram v/s. State of 70873213 150000 282700 33924
MP & Anr.
38. 242@2013 Shankar v/s. State of 119421 14331 1000 120
MP & Anr.
39. 243@2013 Ramchandra v/s. 51279231 150000 216300 25956
State of MP & Anr.
40. 245@2013 Hindu Singh v/s. State 29199871 150000 116300 13956
of MP & Anr.
41. 246@2013 Hari Singh v/s. State 24642982 150000 104600 12552
of MP & Anr.
42. 247@2013 Prem Singh & Ors. 173140424 150000 689600 100688
v/s. State of MP & Anr.
43. 248@2013 Anwar Kha v/s. State 17625374 150000 70200 8424
of MP & Anr.
44. 249@2013 Jagdish v/s. State of 31484642 150000 125400 15048
MP & Anr.
45. 250@2013 Madan Lal v/s. State 38690457 150000 154100 18492
of MP & Anr.
46. 251@2013 Umrao Singh v/s. 28973905 150000 116400 13968
State of MP & Anr.
47. 252@2013 Burkhilal & Ors. v/s. 82377281 150000 328100 39372
State of MP & Anr.
48. 253@2013 Roop Singh & Anr. 36732082 150000 146300 17556
v/s. State of MP & Anr.
49. 727@2013 Heerabai v/s. State of 60609191 150000 241400 28968
MP & Anr.
50. 728@2013 Ramkishan thro. LR's 14712919 150000 58600 7032
Leeladhar & Arn. v/s.
State of MP & Anr.
22
51. 729@2013 Shrikishan v/s. State 35175425 150000 140100 16812
of MP & Anr.
52. 730@2013 Nandu v/s. State of 24931618 150000 99300 11916
MP & Anr.
53. 731@2013 Ramchandra v/s. 26237202 150000 104500 12540
State of MP & Anr.
54. 732@2013 Santosh & Anr. v/s. 28873476 150000 115000 13800
State of MP.
55. 736@2013 Ramprasad v/s. State 26237202 150000 104500 12540
of MP & Anr.
56. 737@2013 Ayub Kha thr. LR's 48808727 150000 194400 23328
Fayaz & Ors. v/s.
State of MP & Anr.
57. 833@2013 Sita Devi v/s. State of 13131155 150000 52300 6276
MP & Anr.
58. 1011@2013 Decead. Reshambai 18999584 150000 78400 9408
thr. LR's Ramchandra
& Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
P.T.O.
23
No.6 Village Khandwa
Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the Valuation Court By Court fees
parties at the time fees amendm paid as
of payable -ent per
presentati- reduced amended
on of the valuation
appeal valuatio
n of
appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1176@2013 Mohan & Ors. v/s. 114068 99221 50000 6000
. State of MP & Anr.
2 1178@2013 Radheysham & 18992355 150000 50000 6000
. Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
3 1182@2013 Mangilal thru. LR's 54733723 150000 50000 6000
. Krishna & Ors. v/s.
State of MP & Anr.
4 1185@2013 Ranchhod v/s. 8935342 150000 50000 6000
. State of MP & Anr.
5 1186@2013 Chhogalal v/s. 96515952 150000 50000 6000
. State of MP & Anr.
6 1187@2013 Ayodhya Bai & 10289902 150000 50000 6000
. Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
7 1188@2013 Kamlabai v/s. 22243298 150000 50000 6000
. State of MP & Anr.
8 1189@2013 Radheyshyam & 56993699 150000 50000 6000
. Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
9 1190@2013 Babulal & Ors. v/s. 29467617 150000 50000 6000
. State of MP & Anr.
1 1191@2013 Radheyshyam v/s. 50130596 150000 50000 6000
0 State of MP & Anr.
.
1 1192@2013 Nar Singh & Ors. 12535620 150000 50000 6000
1 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
1 1193@2013 Badrilal & Ors. v/s. 21844060 150000 50000 6000
2 State of MP & Anr.
.
1 1194@2013 Savjiram v/s. State 33709528 150000 50000 6000
3 of MP & Anr.
.
24
1 1195@2013 Deced. Babulal thr. 9771842 150000 50000 6000
4 LR's Vishnu & Ors.
v/s. State of MP &
. Anr.
1 1196@2013 Ghisa v/s. State of 20361173 150000 50000 6000
5 MP & Anr.
.
1 1197@2013 Radheyshyam v/s. 2490489 139715 50000 6000
6 State of MP & Anr.
.
1 1198@2013 Mangilal & Ors. 63574008 150000 50000 6000
7 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
1 1199@2013 Mukesh & Ors. v/s. 63806897 150000 50000 6000
8 State of MP & Anr.
.
1 1200@2013 Shivnarayan v/s. 6798940 150000 50000 6000
9 State of MP & Anr.
.
2 1201@2013 Radheysham & 16482854 150000 50000 6000
0 Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
.
2 1202@2013 Ramchandra v/s. 2357409 135723 50000 6000
1 State of MP & Anr.
.
2 1203@2013 Shankar & Anr. 10912524 150000 50000 6000
2 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
2 1204@2013 Murari & Ors. v/s. 15494263 150000 50000 6000
3 State of MP & Anr.
.
2 1209@2013 Ramchandra v/s. 7319376 150000 50000 6000
4 State of MP & Anr.
.
2 1218@2013 Mukund v/s. State 7946751 150000 50000 6000
5 of MP & Anr.
.
2 1219@2013 Jagdish v/s. State 7946751 150000 50000 6000
6 of MP & Anr.
.
2 1220@2013 Ghisalal & Ors. 100080583 150000 50000 6000
7 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
25
2 1221@2013 Fakirchandra Thr. 4087444 150000 50000 6000
8 LR's Dinesh & Anr.
v/s. State of MP &
. Anr.
2 1222@2013 Pappu & Anr. v/s. 17889695 150000 50000 6000
9 State of MP & Anr.
.
3 1223@2013 Leeladhar v/s. 10415852 150000 50000 6000
0 State of MP & Anr.
.
3 1224@2013 Tejram v/s. State 5475273 150000 50000 6000
1 of MP & Anr.
.
3 1225@2013 Salagram v/s. 20361173 150000 50000 6000
2 State of MP & Anr.
.
3 1226@2013 Ramprasad v/s. 23840253 150000 50000 6000
3 State of MP & Anr.
.
3 1227@2013 Gheesa & Anr. v/s. 2483360 139500 50000 6000
4 State of MP & Anr.
.
3 1228@2013 Balu & Ors. v/s. 31627784 150000 50000 6000
5 State of MP & Anr.
.
3 1229@2013 Dropadibai & Anr. 50722335 150000 50000 6000
6 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
3 1230@2013 Ramibai v/s. State 11109767 150000 50000 6000
7 of MP & Anr.
.
3 1231@2013 Madan v/s. State 21368775 150000 50000 6000
8 of MP & Anr.
.
3 1232@2013 Shriram & Anr. v/s. 368345 44205 50000 6000
9 State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1233@2013 Rajaram & Anr. 21813166 150000 50000 6000
0 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
4 1234@2013 Ramesh v/s. State 6730024 150000 50000 6000
1 of MP & Anr.
.
26
4 1235@2013 Shriram & Ors. v/s. 64372485 150000 50000 6000
2 State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1236@2013 Leela Bai v/s. 9942944 150000 50000 6000
3 State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1237@2013 Kalu v/s. State of 29049367 150000 50000 6000
4 MP & Anr.
.
4 1238@2013 Hindu Singh v/s. 53459961 150000 50000 6000
5 State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1239@2013 Tejram & Ors. v/s. 119904685 150000 50000 6000
6 State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1240@2013 Keshariya thr. 257247546 150000 50000 6000
7 LR's Badrilal v/s.
State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1241@2013 Suresh & Ors. v/s. 54237051 150000 50000 6000
8 State of MP & Anr.
.
4 1242@2013 Dariyav Singh v/s. 18322204 150000 50000 6000
9 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 1243@2013 Revanand v/s. 17490457 150000 50000 6000
0 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 1244@2013 Nandram v/s. State 23840253 150000 50000 6000
1 of MP & Anr.
.
5 1245@2013 Chhita Bai v/s. 93013108 150000 50000 6000
2 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 1246@2013 Rameshwar v/s. 2732884 150000 50000 6000
3 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 1247@2013 Ramesh & Anr. 19866877 150000 50000 6000
4 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
5 1248@2013 Suraj Bai v/s. State 21368775 150000 50000 6000
5 of MP & Anr.
.
27
5 1249@2013 Shrikishan & Ors. 73462295 150000 50000 6000
6 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
5 1250@2013 Ramchandra v/s. 2732884 150000 50000 6000
7 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 1251@2013 Vishnu & Anr. v/s. 70056884 150000 50000 6000
8 State of MP & Anr.
.
5 1252@2013 Vikram & Ors. v/s. 9624504 150000 50000 6000
9 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 1253@2013 Ramesh & Ors. 403992 48480 50000 6000
0 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
6 1254@2013 Saligram v/s. State 47642483 150000 50000 6000
1 of MP & Anr.
.
6 1255@2013 Badrilal v/s. State 32889663 150000 50000 6000
2 of MP & Anr.
.
6 1256@2013 Rameshwar v/s. 10125929 150000 50000 6000
3 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 1257@2013 Girdhari v/s. State 19353571 150000 50000 6000
4 of MP & Anr.
.
6 1258@2013 Mukesh & Ors. v/s. 8422035 150000 50000 6000
5 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 1259@2013 Kashiram thr. LR's 2721002 150000 50000 6000
6 Bhilu v/s. State of
. MP & Anr.
6 1260@2013 Ramprasad v/s. 46931934 150000 50000 6000
7 State of MP & Anr.
.
6 1261@2013 Sanju v/s. State of 6368808 150000 50000 6000
8 MP & Anr.
.
6 1262@2013 Vishnu & Anr. v/s. 2376421 150000 50000 6000
9 State of MP & Anr.
.
28
7 1263@2013 Mangilal v/s. State 18098820 150000 50000 6000
0 of MP & Anr.
.
7 1264@2013 Hariram v/s. State 13612138 150000 50000 6000
1 of MP & Anr.
.
7 1265@2013 Ranchhod & Anr. 499048 59886 50000 6000
2 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
7 1266@2013 Murli v/s. State of 57074497 150000 50000 6000
3 MP & Anr.
.
7 1267@2013 Deced. Ranchhod 58117746 150000 50000 6000
4 thr. LR's v/s. State
of MP & Anr.
.
7 1268@2013 Badrilal & Ors. v/s. 10931535 150000 50000 6000
5 State of MP & Anr.
.
7 1269@2013 Salagram & Ors. 119904685 150000 50000 6000
6 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
7 1270@2013 Pirgabai v/s. State 3726228 150000 50000 6000
7 of MP & Anr.
.
7 1271@2013 Ghanshyam v/s. 1865490 120965 50000 6000
8 State of MP & Anr.
.
7 1272@2013 Ghisalal & Anr. 23609740 150000 50000 6000
9 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
8 1273@2013 Ghisalal & Ors. 10209104 150000 50000 6000
0 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
8 1274@2013 Kanhiyalal & Ors. 19866877 150000 50000 6000
1 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
8 1275@2013 Kanhiyalal & Ors. 12744745 150000 50000 6000
2 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
8 1276@2013 Rameshwar & 19527049 150000 50000 6000
3 Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
.
29
8 1277@2013 Deced. Kesariya 3783262 150000 50000 6000
4 thr. LR's Badrilal &
Ors. v/s. State of
. MP & Anr.
8 1278@2013 Mangilal & Ors. 7148274 150000 50000 6000
5 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
8 1279@2013 Deced. 14657763 150000 50000 6000
6 Radhakishan thr.
LR's Vishnu & Anr.
. v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
8 1280@2013 Girdhari thr. LR's 7452455 150000 50000 6000
7 Yashwant & Ors.
v/s. State of MP &
. Anr.
8 1281@2013 Deced. Nanuram 33735669 150000 50000 6000
8 thr. LR's
Ghanshyam v/s.
. State of MP & Anr.
8 1282@2013 Deced. Jairam thr. 26989010 150000 50000 6000
9 LR's Shankar v/s.
State of MP & Anr.
.
9 1283@2013 Ramesh v/s. State 1996193 124890 50000 6000
0 of MP & Anr.
.
9 1284@2013 Mukund v/s. State 10817467 150000 50000 6000
1 of MP & Anr.
.
9 1285@2013 Ramesh & Anr. 8935342 150000 50000 6000
2 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
9 1286@2013 Deced. 2483360 139500 50000 6000
3 Radhakishan thr.
LR's Vishnu & Ors.
. v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
9 1287@2013 Kashiram thr. LR's 5779455 150000 50000 6000
4 Manohar v/s. State
of MP.
.
9 1288@2013 Gopichandra & 15209093 150000 50000 6000
5 Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
.
9 1289@2013 Sangeetabai v/s. 9942944 150000 50000 6000
6 State of MP & Anr.
.
9 1290@2013 Santosh & Ors. 29049367 150000 50000 6000
7 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
30
9 1291@2013 Rameshwar v/s. 2243341 132300 50000 6000
8 State of MP & Anr.
.
9 1292@2013 Ramibai & Ors. 141613289 150000 50000 6000
9 v/s. State of MP &
Anr.
.
1 1293@2013 Ramchandra & 30703356 150000 50000 6000
0 Ors. v/s. State of
MP & Anr.
0
.
P.T.O.
31
No.7 Village Sagore
Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the Valuation at Court By Court
parties the time of fees amen- fees paid
presentation payable dment as per
of appeal reduced amended
the valuation
valuati-
on of
appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 194@2014 Madan Singh v/s. 16863082 150000 50000 6000
. State of MP.
2 196@2014 Jagdish v/s. State of 23978086 150000 50000 6000
. MP.
3 197@2014 Ghanshyam v/s. 58186663 150000 50000 6000
. State of MP.
4 198@2014 Sitaram v/s. State of 17889695 150000 50000 6000
. MP.
5 199@2014 Ratan v/s. State of 7081734 150000 50000 6000
. MP.
6 200@2014 Mathuri Bai v/s. State 17383518 150000 50000 6000
. of MP.
7 201@2014 Jagannath v/s. State 34778918 150000 50000 6000
. of MP.
8 202@2014 Mohan v/s. State of 41397250 150000 50000 6000
. MP.
9 203@2014 Umrao v/s. State of 26461446 150000 50000 6000
. MP.
1 204@2014 Punjraj v/s. State of 7450079 150000 50000 6000
0 MP.
.
1 205@2014 Umrao Singh v/s. 6701507 150000 50000 6000
1 State of MP.
.
1 206@2014 Devi Singh v/s. State 1387830 106635 50000 6000
2 of MP.
.
1 207@2014 Ramesh v/s. State of 26449564 150000 50000 6000
3 MP.
.
1 208@2014 Dinesh v/s. State of 51378217 150000 50000 6000
4 MP.
32
1 209@2014 Deced. Ambaram 29441477 150000 50000 6000
5 Thr. LR's Munna v/s.
State of MP.
.
1 210@2014 Suresh v/s. State of 40351625 150000 50000 6000
6 MP.
.
1 211@2014 Madan Singh v/s. 31176264 150000 50000 6000
7 State of MP.
.
1 212@2014 Kesar Bai v/s. State 3973375 150000 50000 6000
8 of MP.
.
1 213@2014 Dali Bai v/s. State of 25330269 150000 50000 6000 9 MP.
.
2 214@2014 Naushad v/s. State of 20893491 150000 50000 6000 0 MP.
.
2 215@2014 Jagdish v/s. State of 14080293 150000 50000 6000 1 MP.
.
2 216@2014 Madu v/s. State of 8084583 150000 50000 6000 2 MP.
.
2 217@2014 Umrao v/s. State of 26461446 150000 50000 6000 3 MP.
.
2 218@2014 Antar Singh v/s. 7699603 150000 50000 6000 4 State of MP.
.
2 219@2014 Radheyshyam v/s. 28980452 150000 50000 6000 5 State of MP.
.
2 220@2014 Devi Singh v/s. State 9446273 150000 50000 6000 6 of MP.
.
2 221@2014 Shazhad Kha v/s. 26996140 150000 50000 6000 7 State of MP.
.
2 222@2014 Jagdish v/s. State of 8940095 150000 50000 6000 8 MP.
.
332 223@2014 Babu v/s. State of 13165371 150000 50000 6000 9 MP.
.
3 224@2014 Pratap v/s. State of 9446273 150000 50000 6000 0 MP.
.
3 225@2014 Yashoda Bai v/s. 3101229 150000 50000 6000 1 State of MP.
.
3 226@2014 Manibai v/s. State of 14900158 150000 50000 6000 2 MP.
.
3 227@2014 Ramu Bai v/s. State 2483360 150000 50000 6000 3 of MP.
.
3 228@2014 Hanjabai thr. LR's 19866877 150000 50000 6000 4 Jagdish v/s. State of MP.
.
3 229@2014 Deced. Mohan Singh 7450079 150000 50000 6000 5 thr. LR's Mamta Bai v/s. State of MP.
.
3 230@2014 Kamal Singh v/s. 12908718 150000 50000 6000 6 State of MP.
.
3 231@2014 Mangibai v/s. State 19866878 150000 50000 6000 7 of MP.
.
3 232@2014 Bane Singh v/s. 34203824 150000 50000 6000 8 State of MP.
.
3 233@2014 Jaswant Singh v/s. 41397250 150000 50000 6000 9 State of MP.
.
4 234@2014 Mumtajbee v/s. State 20912503 150000 50000 6000 0 of MP.
.
4 235@2014 Dule Singh v/s. State 26461446 150000 50000 6000 1 of MP.
.
4 236@2014 Devji v/s. State of 12416799 150000 50000 6000 2 MP.
.
4 237@2014 Ambaram v/s. State 34203824 150000 50000 6000 34 of MP.
4 238@2014 Rajaram v/s. State of 7450079 150000 50000 6000 4 MP.
.
4 239@2014 Mangilal v/s. State of 26461446 150000 50000 6000 5 MP.
.
4 240@2014 Shabab Kha v/s. 20912503 150000 50000 6000 6 State of MP.
.
4 241@2014 Goverdhan v/s. 14068411 150000 50000 6000 7 State of MP.
.
4 242@2014 Mansingh v/s. State 9434391 150000 50000 6000 8 of MP.
.
4 243@2014 Babulal v/s. State of 3184404 150000 50000 6000 9 MP.
.
5 244@2014 Reshambai v/s. State 3410164 150000 50000 6000 0 of MP.
.
5 266@2014 Decd. Jairam thr. 23978086 150000 50000 6000 1 LR's Ramesh v/s.
State of MP.
.
5 270@2014 Decd. Sajanbai thr. 29111155 150000 50000 6000 2 LR's Nandram v/s.
State of MP.
.
5 271@2014 Madanlal v/s. State 22350238 150000 50000 6000 3 of MP.
.
5 272@2014 Sayar v/s. State of 26461446 150000 50000 6000 4 MP.
.
5 273@2014 Kishore v/s. State of 12416799 150000 50000 6000 5 MP.
.
5 274@2014 Decd. Munalal thr. 7450079 150000 50000 6000 6 LR's Anup Singh v/s.
State of MP.
.
5 275@2014 Ambaram thr. LR's 35760379 150000 50000 6000 7 Bhagwantibai v/s.
State of MP.
.
355 276@2014 Ramesh v/s. State of 26473328 150000 50000 6000 8 MP.
.
5 277@2014 Kanhiyalal thr. LR's 1734787 117043 50000 6000 9 Deepak v/s. State of MP .
6 278@2014 Deced. Ram Singh 12416799 150000 50000 6000 0 thr. LR's Bhagwantabai v/s.
. State of MP.
6 279@2014 Satish v/s. State of 16882093 150000 50000 6000
1 MP.
.
6 280@2014 Balwant thr. LR's 14068411 150000 50000 6000
2 Balaram v/s. State of
MP.
.
6 281@2014 Ramprasad v/s. State 27742336 150000 50000 6000
3 of MP.
.
6 282@2014 Bhagirath thr. LR's 35401540 150000 50000 6000
4 Ghanshyam v/s.
State of MP.
.
6 283@2014 Badrilal thr. LR's 26461446 150000 50000 6000
5 Gajanand v/s. State
of MP.
.
6 284@2014 Deced. Peera thr. 6473328 150000 50000 6000
6 LR's Raysingh v/s.
State of MP.
.
6 285@2014 Munalal thr. LR's 7450079 150000 50000 6000
7 Anup Singh v/s.
State of MP.
.
6 286@2014 Deced. Hem Singh 12167274 150000 50000 6000
8 thr. LR's Govind v/s.
State of MP.
.
6 287@2014 Bheela v/s. State of 26461446 150000 50000 6000
9 MP.
.
7 446@2014 Keshar Singh v/s. 11022135 150000 50000 6000
0 State of MP.
.
7 699@2014 Shyam v/s. State of 6630214 150000 50000 6000
1 MP.
.
36
7 701@2014 Mainabai v/s. State 26501844 150000 50000 6000
2 of MP.
.
7 702@2014 Gajanand v/s. State 4348850 150000 50000 6000
3 of MP.
.
7 703@2014 Mangilal v/s. State of 9933439 150000 50000 6000
4 MP.
.
7 706@2014 Saurambai v/s. State 5715292 150000 50000 6000
5 of MP.
.
7 734@2014 Jagdish v/s. State of 21378281 150000 50000 6000
6 MP.
.
7 735@2014 Sukhram v/s. State 24833597 150000 50000 6000
7 of MP.
.
7 736@2014 Ganesh v/s. State of 3350753 150000 50000 6000
8 MP.
.
7 737@2014 Sampat Bai (Deced.) 5964816 150000 50000 6000
9 thru. LR's Saurambai
v/s. State of MP.
.
8 740@2014 Kailash v/s. State of 1368818 106065 50000 6000
0 MP.
.
8 741@2014 Bhanwar Singh v/s. 11549405 150000 50000 6000
1 State of MP.
.
8 783@2014 Hem Singh v/s. State 16551771 150000 50000 6000
2 of MP.
.
8 784@2014 Bholaram v/s. State 18120208 150000 50000 6000
3 of MP.
.
37
P.T.O.
38
No.8 Village Godgaon
Sr.No F.A.Nos. Particulars of the parties Valuation Court By Court
at the time fees amen- fees paid
of payable dment as per
presentati- reduc- amended
on of ed the valuation
appeal valuati-
on of
appeal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 595@2014 Banshilal v/s. State of 16971837 150000 50000 6000
MP.
2. 596@2014 Kunwarji (Deced.) thr. 50198392 150000 50000 6000
LR's Vishnu v/s. State
of MP.
3. 598@2014 Shobharam v/s. State 22111196 150000 50000 6000
of MP.
4. 599@2014 Vishram v/s. State of 20772573 150000 50000 6000
MP.
5. 601@2014 Hariram v/s. State of 29282395 150000 50000 6000
MP.
6. 603@2014 Ramchandra v/s. State 15418077 150000 50000 6000
of MP.
7. 604@2014 Mohan v/s. State of 25864124 150000 50000 6000
MP.
8. 607@2014 Girdhari v/s. State of 12489838 150000 50000 6000
MP.
9. 609@2014 Jamnalal v/s. State of 20629149 150000 50000 6000
MP.
1 612@2014 Mahesh v/s. State of 95759408 150000 50000 6000
0. MP.
1 613@2014 Leeladhar v/s. State of 48214360 150000 50000 6000
1. MP.
1 614@2014 Hariram v/s. State of 16230813 150000 50000 6000
2. MP.
1 617@2014 Moolchand v/s. State 36812154 150000 50000 6000
3. of MP.
1 618@2014 Deced Ramcharan thr. 29282395 150000 50000 6000
4. LR's Ramesh v/s.
State of MP.
1 628@2014 Girdhari v/s. State of 44676569 150000 50000 6000
5. MP.
39
1 629@2014 Radheyshyam v/s. 143143104 150000 50000 6000
6. State of MP.
1 632@2014 Murlidhar v/s. State of 27633019 150000 50000 6000
7. MP.
1 633@2014 Punjraj thr. LR's 57632534 150000 50000 6000
8. Jitendra v/s. State of
MP.
1 634@2014 Vishnu v/s. State of 55003095 150000 50000 6000
9. MP.
2 640@2014 Ramesh v/s. State of 17019645 150000 50000 6000
0. MP.
2 641@2014 Balwant Singh 45847864 150000 50000 6000
1. (Deced.) thro. LR's
Lakhan Singh v/s.
State of MP.
2 642@2014 Mukund v/s. State of 19744701 150000 50000 6000
2. MP.
2 643@2014 Babu v/s. State of MP. 12489838 150000 50000 6000
3.
2 645@2014 Budhadha v/s. State of 20228757 150000 50000 6000
4. MP.
2 646@2014 Hariram v/s. State of 140815452 150000 50000 6000
5. MP.
2 647@2014 Ramprasad v/s. State 29258491 150000 50000 6000
6. of MP.
2 650@2014 Radheyshyam v/s. 4780799 150000 50000 6000
7. State of MP.
2 651@2014 Muralidhar v/s. State of 149400 17928 50000 6000
8. MP.
2 653@2014 Radheyshyam v/s. 20318397 150000 50000 6000
9. State of MP.
3 654@2014 Jagannath v/s. State of 20533533 150000 50000 6000
0. MP.
3 655@20147 Siyanand v/s. State of 29019451 150000 50000 6000
1. MP.
3 656@2014 Deced Punjraj thu. 156442690 150000 50000 6000
2. LR's Jitendra v/s. State
of MP.
40
3 657@2014 Harram v/s. State of 32485531 150000 50000 6000
3. MP.
3 785@2014 Bheru Singh v/s. State 1568700 150000 50000 6000
4. of MP.
3 827@2014 Sorambai v/s. State of 12430078 150000 50000 6000
5. MP.
3 828@2014 Geetabai v/s. State of 6244919 150000 50000 6000
6. MP.
3 786/2014 Ambaram thr. LR's 23473724 150000 50000 6000
7. Rameshwar & Ors. v/s.
State of MP.
4. The following mentioned appeals have been filed by the State of M.P. :-
No.1 Village Madhavpur Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No.
1. F.A. No. 711/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs.Kantibai 2 F.A. No. 712/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ambaram .
3 F.A. No. 713/2012 State of M.P.& Anr.vs.Mohansingh .
4 F.A. No. 714/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ashok & Ors.
.
5 F.A. No. 715/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Dharmendra .
6 F.A. No. 716/2012 State of M.P.&Anr. vs.Nasim Bi & Ors. .
7 F.A. No. 717/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kanhaiyalal .
8 F.A. No. 718/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gajibai .
9 F.A. No. 719/2012 State of M.P.& Anr. vs. Jagdish & Anr. .
411 F.A. No. 720/2012 State of M.P.& Anr. vs. Shantabai& Anr. 0 .
1 F.A. No. 721/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghisa & Anr. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 722/2012 Stateof M.P. & Anr. vs.Kanhaiyalal& Ors. 2 .
1 F.A. No. 723/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Girdhari 3 .
1 F.A. No. 724/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nandkishore & Ors. 4 .
1 F.A. No. 725/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Narsingh Thru. Lrs. Ramesh & Ors. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 726/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Abdul 6 .
1 F.A. No. 727/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Atmaram 7 .
1 F.A. No. 728/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Omprakash 8 .
1 F.A. No. 729/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Iqbal 9 .
2 F.A. No. 730/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gangaram 0 .
2 F.A. No. 731/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gangabai 1 .
422 F.A. No. 732/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jagdish 2 .
2 F.A. No. 733/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Bhagwan 3 .
2 F.A. No. 735/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mansingh 4 .
2 F.A. No. 736/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramratan 5 .
2 F.A. No. 737/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheshyam 6 .
2 F.A. No. 738/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramkishan 7 .
2 F.A. No. 740/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh 8 .
2 F.A. No. 741/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Laxman 9 .
3 F.A. No. 742/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Subhash 0 .
3 F.A. No. 743/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Suresh 1 .
3 F.A. No. 744/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Saurambai 2 .
3 F.A. No. 745/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hukumchand 3 .
433 F.A. No. 746/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Antarsingh & Ors. 4 .
3 F.A. No. 747/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kamrudin 5 .
3 F.A. No. 748/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheshyam 6 .
3 F.A. No. 749/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kanhaiyalal 7 .
3 F.A. No. 750/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kesharsingh 8 .
3 F.A. No. 752/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nandram 9 .
4 F.A. No. 753/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra Thru. Lrs. Leeladhar 0 .
4 F.A. No. 754/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kalabai & Ors. 1 .
4 F.A. No. 755/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sunitabai & Ors. 2 .
4 F.A. No. 756/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs.Hemlata & Ors. 3 .
4 F.A. No. 757/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Badrilal Thru. Lrs. Hariram. 4 .
4 F.A. No. 758/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hukum. 5 .
444 F.A. No. 759/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Banshilal. 6 .
4 F.A. No. 760/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Madanlal. 7 .
4 F.A. No. 761/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rajendra. 8 .
4 F.A. No. 762/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra. 9 .
5 F.A. No. 763/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Narendrasingh. 0 .
5 F.A. No. 764/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Babulal. 1 .
5 F.A. No. 765/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hemsingh. 2 .
5 F.A. No. 766/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramratan. 3 .
5 F.A. No. 767/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Madanlal. 4 .
5 F.A. No. 768/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mahesh. 5 .
5 F.A. No. 769/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ratansingh. 6 .
5 F.A. No. 770/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hariram. 7 .
455 F.A. No. 771/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramibai & Anr. 8 .
5 F.A. No. 772/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sonibai. 9 .
6 F.A. No. 773/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Dariyavsingh. 0 .
6 F.A.No.774/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Fakirchand Thru. Lrs. Dinesh. 1 .
6 F.A. No. 775/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Mangilal Thru. Lrs. Krishna. 2 .
6 F.A. No. 776/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mansingh. 3 .
6 F.A. No. 777/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mahadev Bharit & Ors. 4 .
6 F.A. No. 778/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh. 5 .
6 F.A. No. 779/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Banshilal. 6 .
6 F.A. No. 780/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Narendrasingh & Anr. 7 .
6 F.A. No. 781/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Bulbul @ Charan. 8 .
6 F.A. No. 782/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Devisingh. 9 .
467 F.A. No. 783/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra & Anr. 0 .
7 F.A. No. 784/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shantibai. 1 .
7 F.A. No. 785/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramratan & Ors. 2 .
7 F.A. No. 786/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheshyam. 3 .
7 F.A. No. 787/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Meerabai. 4 .
7 F.A. No. 788/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohansingh. 5 .
7 F.A. No. 789/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnu & Ors. 6 .
7 F.A. No. 790/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rajendra & Ors. 7 .
7 F.A. No. 791/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jafruddin. 8 .
7 F.A. No. 792/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nandkishore & Anr. 9 .
8 F.A. No. 793/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra & Ors. 0 .
8 F.A. No. 794/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Santosh. 1 .
478 F.A. No. 795/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Leeladhar. 2 .
8 F.A. No. 796/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandrakhati. 3 .
8 F.A. No. 797/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rambaksh & Ors. 4 .
8 F.A. No. 798/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnukhati & Ors. 5 .
8 F.A. No. 799/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramgopal. 6 .
8 F.A. No. 800/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheshyam. 7 .
8 F.A. No. 801/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Raisingh. 8 .
8 F.A. No. 802/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mukeshdhakad & Anr. 9 .
9 F.A. No. 803/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnukhati. 0 .
9 F.A. No. 804/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramratan & Ors. 1 .
9 F.A. No. 806/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sawabkha & Ors. 2 .
9 F.A. No. 807/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Lalsingh Thru. Anoopsingh & Ors. 3 .
489 F.A. No. 808/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Saudrabai. 4 .
9 F.A. No. 809/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnukhati. 5 .
9 F.A. No. 810/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs.Rajesh. 6 .
9 F.A. No. 811/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohan & Anr. 7 .
9 F.A. No. 812/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Reshambai. 8 .
9 F.A. No. 813/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohansingh & Anr. 9 .
1 F.A. No. 818/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Suganbai. 0 0 .
1 F.A. No. 819/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jasodabai & Anr. 0 1 .
1 F.A. No. 820/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kailash. 0 2 .
1 F.A. No. 821/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramgopal. 0 3 .
1 F.A. No. 823/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Madhusudan. 0 4 .
491 F.A. No. 824/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kailash & Anr. 0 5 .
1 F.A. No. 825/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Santoshdattak. 0 6 .
1 F.A. No. 826/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Suresh. 0 7 .
1 F.A. No. 827/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mahesh. 0 8 .
1 F.A. No. 828/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Suresh & Anr. 0 9 .
1 F.A. No. 829/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deaubai. 1 0 .
1 F.A. No. 830/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rahiskhan 1 1 .
1 F.A. No. 831/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Irshad. 1 2 .
1 F.A. No. 832/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vijaysingh. 1 3 .
1 F.A. No. 833/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnu & Anr. 1 4 .
501 F.A. No. 834/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rahis. 1 5 .
1 F.A. No. 835/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gangadhar. 1 6 .
1 F.A. No. 836/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Irshad. 1 7 .
1 F.A. No. 837/2012 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Savjiram 1 8 .
1 F.A. No. 838/2012 (State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Murli) 1 9 .
P.T.O. 51 No.2 Village Ansukhedi Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No. 1 F.A. No. 839/2014 State of M.P. vs. Rama. .
2 F.A. No. 844/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ratan. .
3 F.A. No. 845/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kanhaiyalal. .
4 F.A. No. 847/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deepak. .
5 F.A. No. 849/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramprasad. .
6 F.A. No. 850/2014 State of M.P. vs. Savjiram. .
7 F.A. No. 862/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal. .
8 F.A. No. 863/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shriram. .
529 F.A. No. 869/2014 State of M.P. vs. Purushottam. .
1 F.A. No. 870/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shivnarayan. 0 .
1 F.A. No. 873/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramchandra. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 875/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shardabai. 2 .
1 F.A. No. 876/2014 State of M.P. vs. Surajbai. 3 .
1 F.A. No. 877/2014 State of M.P. vs. Chandraprakash. 4 .
1 F.A. No. 879/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramgopal. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 883/2014 State of M.P. vs. Rajendra. 6 .
1 F.A. No. 884/2014 State of M.P. vs. Murarilal. 7 .
1 F.A. No. 885/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramlal. 8 .
1 F.A. No. 886/2014 State of M.P. vs. Samander Singh. 9 .
2 F.A. No. 888/2014 State of M.P. vs. Purushottam. 0 .
532 F.A. No. 889/2014 State of M.P. vs. Suresh. 1 .
2 F.A. No. 891/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Savjiram Thru. Lrs. Vishnu. 2 .
2 F.A. No. 893/2014 State of M.P. vs. Chogalal. 3 .
2 F.A. No. 894/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal. 4 .
2 F.A. No. 901/2014 State of M.P. vs. Dhanibai. 5 .
2 F.A. No. 902/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kanhaiyalal. 6 .
2 F.A. No. 903/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal. 7 .
2 F.A. No. 908/2014 State of M.P. vs. Manish. 8 .
2 F.A. No. 909/2014 State of M.P. vs. Tukaram. 9 .
3 F.A. No. 910/2014 State of M.P. vs. Satyanarayan. 0 .
3 F.A. No. 911/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramibai. 1 .
3 F.A. No. 912/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramchandra. 2 .
543 F.A. No. 913/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ratanlal. 3 .
3 F.A. No. 914/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hemsingh. 4 .
P.T.O. No.3 Village Kalyancikhedi Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No. 1 F.A. No. 393/2014 State of M.P. vs. Madanlal. .
2 F.A. No. 394/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramchandra. .
3 F.A. No. 395/2014 State of M.P. vs. Babulal. .
4 F.A. No. 397/2014 State of M.P. vs. Rameshwar. .
555 F.A. No. 398/2014 State of M.P. vs. Sodrabai. .
6 F.A. No. 399/2014 State of M.P. vs. Bherulal Thru. Lrs. Vikram. .
7 F.A. No. 400/2014 State of M.P. vs. Saitanbai. .
8 F.A. No. 401/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kailash. .
9 F.A. No. 402/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ayodhyabai. .
1 F.A. No. 403/2014 State of M.P. vs. Tejram. 0 .
1 F.A. No. 405/2014 State of M.P. vs. Girdhari Thru. Lrs. Yashwant. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 406/2014 State of M.P. vs. Radheshyam. 2 .
1 F.A. No. 407/2014 State of M.P. vs. Vishnu. 3 .
1 F.A. No. 408/2014 State of M.P. vs. Madan. 4 .
1 F.A. No. 409/2014 State of M.P. vs. Rameshwar. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 410/2014 State of M.P. vs. Bhagwan. 6 .
1 F.A. No. 412/2014 State of M.P. vs. Rajaram. 7 .
561 F.A. No. 414/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal. 8
.
1 F.A. No. 417/2014 State of M.P. vs. Laxminarayan Thru. Lrs. Makhan. 9 .
2 F.A. No. 418/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kashiram Thru. Lrs. Santosh. 0 .
P.T.O. No.4 Village Piplya Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No. 1 F.A. No. 435/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Dhaniram. .
2 F.A. No. 436/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Radheshyam & Ors. .
3 F.A. No.437/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Chandrasingh. .
4 F.A. No. 438/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ghisa. .
5 F.A. No. 439/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Gainabai. .
6 F.A. No. 440/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Mohansingh. .
7 F.A. No. 441/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Rameshchandra. .
8 F.A. No. 442/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ranchhod. .
9 F.A. No. 443/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Rajesh Thru. Natural Guardian Mother . Apsarabai.
571 F.A. No. 444/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Sunersingh. 0 .
1 F.A. No. 445/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Lakhansingh & Anr. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 446/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Babu Khan. 2 .
1 F.A. No. 447/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Omprakash & Ors. 3 .
1 F.A. No. 448/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Saeed Khan. 4 .
1 F.A. No. 449/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sattar Khan. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 450/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Subhash. 6 .
1 F.A. No. 451/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Bhagwantibai. 7 .
1 F.A. No. 452/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Madu. 8 .
1 F.A. No. 453/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Umraosingh & Ors. 9 .
2 F.A. No. 454/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Krishnabai. 0 .
2 F.A. No. 455/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Meharbansingh. 1 .
582 F.A. No. 456/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Meharbansingh. 2 .
2 F.A. No. 459/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramkishan. 3 .
2 F.A. No. 460/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Umraobai. 4 .
2 F.A. No. 461/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Babulal Thru. Lrs. Pawan & 5 Ors.
.
2 F.A. No. 462/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Surendrasingh. 6 .
2 F.A. No. 463/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rahim Khan. 7 .
2 F.A. No. 464/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Omprakash. 8 .
2 F.A. No. 465/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Umraosingh. 9 .
3 F.A. No. 466/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Karansingh. 0 .
3 F.A. No. 467/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Apsarabai. 1 .
3 F.A. No. 471/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Badrilal. 2 .
3 F.A.No. 472/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Bhulibai. 3 .
593 F.A. No. 473/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Banesingh. 4 .
3 F.A. No. 474/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radhabai & Ors. 5 .
3 F.A. No. 475/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mangilal. 6 .
3 F.A. No. 476/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radhabai. 7 .
3 F.A. No. 477/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramlal & Anr. 8 .
3 F.A. No. 478/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Habib Khan. 9 .
4 F.A. No. 479/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Antarsingh. 0 .
4 F.A. No. 480/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rameshchandra. 1 .
4 F.A. No. 481/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnuprasad. 2 .
4 F.A. No. 482/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jatanbai & Ors. 3 .
4 F.A. No. 483/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohan. 4 .
4 F.A. No. 484/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramabai. 5 .
604 F.A. No. 485/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sitaram & Ors. 6 .
4 F.A. No. 486/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Premsingh. 7 .
4 F.A. No. 487/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Narayansingh. 8 .
4 F.A. No. 488/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Pramod & Anr. 9 .
5 F.A. No. 489/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kashiram.. 0 .
5 F.A. No. 490/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Indersingh. 1 .
5 F.A. No. 491/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sourambai. 2 .
5 F.A. No. 492/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Haidar & Ors. 3 .
5 F.A. No. 493/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rupsingh. 4 .
5 F.A. No. 494/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Parwatsingh. 5 .
5 F.A. No. 495/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Chatarsingh. 6 .
5 F.A. No. 496/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Amitkumar. 7 .
615 F.A. No. 497/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Harisingh. 8 .
5 F.A. No. 498/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Dariyavsingh. 9 .
6 F.A. No. 499/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jagdish. 0 .
6 F.A. No. 500/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ranjeet Singh. 1 .
6 F.A. No. 501/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Swati 2 .
6 F.A. No. 502/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radhabai. 3 .
6 F.A. No. 503/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Haider & Ors. 4 .
6 F.A. No. 504/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gajanand. 5 .
6 F.A. No. 505/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Heerabai Thru. Guardian Mother 6 Radhabai.
.
6 F.A. No. 506/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Laxmibai. 7 .
6 F.A. No. 507/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Dhansingh. 8 .
6 F.A. No. 508/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Babusingh Thru. Lrs. 9 Rupsingh & Ors.
.
No.5 Village Suhagpura 62 Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No. 1 F.A. No. 522/2013 State of M.P. vs. Jainabai. .
2 F.A. No. 523/2013 Stateof M.P. vs. Madhusudan & Anr. .
3 F.A. No. 525/2013 State of M.P. vs. Dinesh & Anr. .
4 F.A. No. 526/2013 State of M.P. vs.Shankar & Ors. .
5 F.A. No. 527/2013 State of M.P. vs. Shankar. .
6 F.A. No. 528/2013 State of M.P. vs. Kamal. .
7 F.A. No. 530/2013 State of M.P. vs. Umraosingh. .
8 F.A. No.531/2013 State of M.P. vs. Sitabai. .
9 F.A. No. 532/2013 State of M.P. vs. Jafruddeen. .
1 F.A. No. 533/2013 State of M.P. vs. Kamruddeen. 0 .
1 F.A. No. 534/2013 State of M.P. vs. Shankarsingh. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 536/2013 State of M.P. vs. Madan. 2 .
1 F.A. No. 537/2013 State of M.P. vs. Harisingh. 3 .
1 F.A. No. 538/2013 State of M.P. vs. Burkhilal. 4 .
631 F.A. No. 539/2013 State of M.P. vs. Annubai. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 540/2013 State of M.P. vs. Hindusingh. 6 .
1 F.A. No. 541/2013 State of M.P. vs. Rabiyabee. 7 .
1 F.A. No. 542/2013 State of M.P. vs. Umrao. 8 .
1 F.A. No. 543/2013 State of M.P. vs. Madanlal. 9 .
2 F.A. No. 544/2013 State of M.P. vs. Subhash & Anr. 0 .
2 F.A. No. 545/2013 State of M.P. vs. Vishram (Decd.) Thru. Lrs. Ramesh & Ors. 1 .
2 F.A. No. 546/2013 State of M.P. vs. Shankar. 2 .
2 F.A. No. 547/2013 State of M.P. vs. Ramchandra. 3 .
2 F.A. No. 548/2013 State of M.P. vs. Jagdish. 4 .
2 F.A. No. 550/2013 State of M.P. vs. Premsingh & Ors. 5 .
2 F.A. No. 551/2013 State of M.P. vs. Nirbhaysingh. 6 .
642 F.A. No. 552/2013 State of M.P. vs. Anwarkha. 7 .
2 F.A. No. 553/2013 State of M.P. vs. Rupasingh. 8 .
2 F.A. No. 562/2013 State of M.P. vs. Gabbu. 9 .
3 F.A. No. 563/2013 State of M.P. vs. Leeladhar. 0 .
3 F.A. No. 610/2013 State of M.P. vs. Shantabai. 1 .
3 F.A. No. 611/2013 State of M.P. vs. Rewabai. 2 .
3 F.A. No. 612/2013 State of M.P. vs. Kesharsingh & Ors. 3 .
3 F.A. No. 613/2013 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal & Ors. 4 .
3 F.A. No. 614/2013 State of M.P. vs. Kamlabai. 5 .
3 F.A. No. 615/2013 State of M.P. vs. Hukumsingh. 6 .
3 F.A. No. 616/2013 State of M.P. vs. Ratanbai. 7 .
3 F.A. No. 617/2013 State of M.P. vs. Aatmaram & Anr. 8 .
653 F.A. No. 618/2013 State of M.P. vs. Ritadevi. 9 .
4 F.A. No. 619/2013 State of M.P. vs. Deubai. 0 .
4 F.A. No. 620/2013 State of M.P. vs. Ratansingh. 1 .
4 F.A. No. 621/2013 State of M.P. vs. Rupsingh & Ors. 2 .
4 F.A. No. 622/2013 State of M.P. vs. Seetadevi & Anr. 3 .
4 F.A. No. 623/2013 State of M.P. vs. Kamlabai. 4 .
4 F.A. No. 625/2013 State of M.P. vs. Habibkha. 5 .
4 F.A. No. 626/2013 State of M.P. vs. Bhagwantibai. 6 .
4 F.A. No. 628/2013 State of M.P. vs. Girjabai. 7 .
4 F.A. No. 948/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nandu. 8 .
4 F.A. No. 949/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Santosh & Anr. 9 .
5 F.A. No. 951/2013 StateofM.P.&Anr.vs.Deced.RamkishanThru.Lrs.Leeladhar& 0 Ors.
.
665 F.A. No. 952/2013 (State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Reshambai Thru. Lrs. 1 Ramchandra & Ors.) .
5 F.A. No. 953/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Shrikishan. 2 .
5 F.A. No. 954/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ramchandra. 3 .
5 F.A. No. 955/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ramprasad. 4 .
5 F.A. No. 973/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Deced. Ayyub Kha Thru. Lrs. Fayaz & 5 Ors.
.
5 F.A. No. 801/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kesharsingh. 6 .
P.T.O. 67 No.6 Village Khandwa Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No. 1 F.A. No. 1344/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hindusingh. .
2 F.A. No. 1345/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh. .
3 F.A. No. 1346/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Madan. .
4 F.A. No. 1347/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mukesh & Ors. .
5 F.A. No. 1348/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ranchhod & Ors. .
6 F.A. No. 1349/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Tejram. .
7 F.A. No. 1350/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Peeragbai. .
8 F.A. No. 1351/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kamlabai. .
9 F.A. No. 1352/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Balu & Ors. .
1 F.A. No. 1353/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Fakirchand Thru. Lrs. Dinesh & Anr. 0 .
1 F.A. No. 1354/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Murli. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 1355/2013 StateofM.P.&Anr.vs.Radheshyam&Ors 2 .
1 F.A. No. 1356/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kashiram Thru. Lrs. Manohar. 3 .
681 F.A. No. 1357/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Dropdibai & Anr. 4 .
1 F.A. No. 1358/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghisa. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 1359/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Surajbai 6 .
1 F.A. No. 1360/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra. 7 .
1 F.A. No. 1361/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Chogalal. 8 .
1 F.A. No. 1362/2013 (State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shankarlal & Anr.) 9 .
2 F.A. No. 1363/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Nanuram Thru. Lrs. 0 Ghanshyam.
.
2 F.A. No. 1364/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rajaram & Ors. 1 .
2 F.A. No. 1365/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sawjiram. 2 .
2 F.A. No. 1366/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Keshriya Thru. Badrilal & Ors. 3 .
2 F.A. No. 1367/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced.Keshriya Thru. Badrilal & Ors. 4 .
2 F.A. No. 1368/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced.Ramibai & Ors. 5 .
692 F.A. No. 1369/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghisalal & Ors. 6 .
2 F.A. No. 1370/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shriram & Ors. 7 .
2 F.A. No. 1371/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Girdhari Thru.Lrs. Yashwant & 8 Ors.
.
2 F.A. No. 1373/2013 (State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nandram) 9 .
3 F.A. No. 1374/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghanshyam. 0 .
3 F.A. No. 1375/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hariram. 1 .
3 F.A. No. 1377/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh & Anr. 2 .
3 F.A. No. 1378/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mangilal & Ors. 3 .
3 F.A. No. 1380/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Mangilal Thru. Lrs. Krishna & 4 Ors.
.
3 F.A. No. 1381/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Murari & Ors. 5 .
3 F.A. No. 1382/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheshyam. 6 .
3 F.A. No. 1383/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Jairam Thru. Lrs. Shankar & 7 Ors.
.
703 F.A. No. 1385/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kanhaiyalal & Ors. 8 .
3 F.A. No. 1387/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghisalal & Ors. 9 .
4 F.A. No. 1389/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mangilal & Ors. 0 .
4 F.A. No. 1391/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rameshwar & Ors. 1 .
4 F.A. No. 1392/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Babulal & Ors. 2 .
4 F.A. No. 1395/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Radhakishan Thru. Lrs. Vishnu 3 & Anr.
.
4 F.A. No. 1396/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra. 4 .
4 F.A. No. 1397/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rameshwar. 5 .
4 F.A. No. 1398/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Babulal Thru. Lrs. Vishnu & 6 Ors.
.
4 F.A. No. 1399/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohan & Ors. 7 .
4 F.A. No. 1400/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kanhaiyalal & Ors. 8 .
4 F.A. No. 1401/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghisa & Anr. 9 .
715 F.A. No. 1402/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramibai. 0 .
5 F.A. No. 1403/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Narsingh & Ors. 1 .
5 F.A. No. 1404/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Salagram. 2 .
5 F.A. No. 1405/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mukund 3 .
5 F.A. No. 1406/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheshyam. 4 .
5 F.A. No. 1407/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh & Ors. 5 .
5 F.A. No. 1408/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Suresh & Ors. 6 .
5 F.A. No. 1409/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Ayodhyabai Thru. Lrs. 7 Ramchandra & Ors.
.
5 F.A. No. 1410/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shivnarayan. 8 .
5 F.A. No. 1411/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ghisalal & Anr. 9 .
6 F.A. No. 1412/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra & Ors. 0 .
6 F.A. No. 1413/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Kashiram thru. Lrs. Bhiluje. 1 .
726 F.A. No. 1416/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramprasad. 2 .
6 F.A. No. 1419/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gopichandra & Ors. 3 .
6 F.A. No. 1420/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh. 4 .
6 F.A. No. 1421/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnu. 5 .
6 F.A. No. 1422/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramprasad. 6 .
6 F.A. No. 1423/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sangitabai. 7 .
6 F.A. No. 1424/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Saligram. 8 .
6 F.A. No. 1425/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Leeladhar. 9 .
7 F.A. No. 1426/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheyshyam & Ors. 0 .
7 F.A. No. 1427/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rameshwar & Ors. 1 .
7 F.A. No. 1428/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Girdhari & Ors. 2 .
7 F.A. No. 1429/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rewanand. 3 .
737 F.A. No. 1430/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mangilal. 4 .
7 F.A. No. 1431/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Santosh & Ors. 5 .
7 F.A. No. 1432/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Chhitabai. 6 .
7 F.A. No. 1434/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Lilabai 7 .
7 F.A. No. 1435/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ranchhod. 8 .
7 F.A. No. 1436/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra. 9 .
8 F.A. No. 1437/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jagdish. 0 .
8 F.A. No. 1438/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vikram & Ors. 1 .
8 F.A. No. 1439/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Daryav Singh. 2 .
8 F.A. No. 1440/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shriram & Ors. 3 .
8 F.A. No. 1441/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramesh & Ors. 4 .
8 F.A. No. 1442/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Ranchhod Thru. Lrs. Gajanand 5 & Ors.
.
748 F.A. No. 1443/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Deced. Radhakishan Thru. Lrs. 6 Vishnu & Ors.
.
8 F.A. No. 1444/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rameshwar. 7 .
8 F.A. No. 1445/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheyshyam & Ors. 8 .
8 F.A. No. 1446/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Sanju. 9 .
9 F.A. No. 1447/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mukut. 0 .
9 F.A. No. 1448/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Tejram & Ors. 1 .
9 F.A. No. 1449/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shrikishan & Ors. 2 .
9 F.A. No. 1450/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Badrilal. 3 .
9 F.A. No. 1451/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kalu. 4 .
9 F.A. No. 1452/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Salagram. 5 .
9 F.A. No. 1453/2013 (State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Badrilal & Ors.) 6 .
9 F.A. No. 1454/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vishnu & Ors. 7 .
75
P.T.O. No.7 Village Sagore Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No.
1. F.A. No. 288/2014 State of M.P. vs. Reshambai. 76
2. F.A. No. 290/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ratan.
3. F.A. No. 291/2014 State of M.P. vs. Radheshyam.
4. F.A. No. 292/2014 State of M.P. vs. Madu.
5. F.A. No. 293/2014 State of M.P. vs. Umrao.
6. F.A. No. 295/2014 State of M.P. vs. Madanlal.
7. F.A. No. 296/2014 State of M.P. vs. Sayar.
8. F.A. No. 297/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyam.
9. F.A. No. 298/2014 State of M.P. vs. Bheela. 1 F.A. No. 299/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ambaram Thru. Lrs. Munna.
0. 1 F.A. No. 300/2014 State of M.P. vs. Dulesingh.
1. 1 F.A. No. 301/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jagdish.
2. 1 F.A. No. 302/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramesh.
3. 1 F.A. No. 303/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mansingh.
4. 1 F.A. No. 304/2014 State of M.P. vs. Manibai.
5. 1 F.A. No. 305/2014 State of M.P. vs. Suresh.
6. 1 F.A. No. 306/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jagannath.
7. 1 F.A. No. 308/2014 State of M.P. vs. Babulal.
8. 1 F.A. No. 309/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramubai.
9. 77 2 F.A. No. 310/2014 State of M.P. vs. Goverdhan.
0. 2 F.A. No. 311/2014 State of M.P. vs. Antarsingh.
1. 2 F.A. No. 314/2014 State of M.P. vs. Dinesh.
2. 2 F.A. No. 317/2014 State of M.P. vs. Devisingh.
3. 2 F.A. No. 321/2014 State of M.P. vs. Dalibai.
4. 2 F.A. No. 331/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jaswantsingh.
5. 2 F.A. No. 332/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jagdish.
6. 2 F.A. No. 333/2014 State of M.P. vs. Umraosingh.
7. 2 F.A. No. 334/2014 State of M.P. vs. Balwant Thru. Lrs. Balaram.
8. 2 F.A. No. 335/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal.
9. 3 F.A. No. 337/2014 State of M.P. vs. Pratap.
0. 3 F.A. No. 340/2014 State of M.P. vs. Poonjraj.
1. 3 F.A. No. 341/2014 State of M.P. vs. Badrilal Thru. Lrs. Gajanand.
2. 3 F.A. No. 343/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kanhaiyalal.
3. 3 F.A. No. 344/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kishore.
4. 3 F.A. No. 346/2014 (State of M.P. vs. Peera Thru. Lrs. Raisingh)
5. 78 3 F.A. No. 348/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ambaram Thru. Lrs. Bhagwantibai.
6. 3 F.A. No. 350/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hemsingh Thru. Lrs. Govind.
7. 3 F.A. No. 355/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Jayram Thru. Lrs. Ramesh.
8. 3 F.A. No. 356/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mukund.
9. 4 F.A. No. 358/2014 State of M.P. vs. Madansingh.
0. 4 F.A. No. 359/2014 State of M.P. vs. Munnalal Thru. Lrs. Anopsingh.
1. 4 F.A. No. 360/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal Thru. Lrs. Banesingh.
2. 4 F.A. No. 362/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hanjabai Thru. Lrs. Jagdish.
3. 4 F.A. No. 363/2014 State of M.P. vs. Munnalal Thru. Lrs. Anopsingh.
4. 4 F.A. No. 364/2014 State of M.P. vs. Madansingh.
5. 4 F.A. No. 365/2014 State of M.P. vs. Sitaram.
6. 4 F.A. No. 366/2014 State of M.P. vs. Noushad.
7. 4 F.A. No. 367/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kamalsingh.
8. 4 F.A. No. 368/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shahjaad Kha.
9. 5 F.A. No. 369/2014 State of M.P. vs. Devisingh.
0. 5 F.A. No. 370/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Ramsingh Thru. Lrs. Bhagwantibai.
1. 79 5 F.A. No. 371/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramprasad.
2. 5 F.A. No. 372/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mumtaj.
3. 5 F.A. No. 373/2014 State of M.P. vs. Devji.
4. 5 F.A. No. 374/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shabab Kha.
5. 5 F.A. No. 375/2014 State of M.P. vs. Narsingh Thru. Ramesh.
6. 5 F.A. No. 376/2014 State of M.P. vs. Satish.
7. 5 F.A. No. 377/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mathuribai.
8. 5 F.A. No. 378/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jashodabai.
9. 6 F.A. No. 379/2014 State of M.P. vs. Rajaram.
0. 6 F.A. No. 380/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangibai.
1. 6 F.A. No. 382/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Bhagirath Thru. Lrs. Ghanshyam.
2. 6 F.A. No. 658/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ganesh.
3. 6 F.A. No. 661/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jagdish.
4. 6 F.A. No. 662/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hemsingh.
5. 6 F.A. No. 664/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mangilal.
6. 6 F.A. No. 668/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mainabai.
7. 80 6 F.A. No. 671/2014 State of M.P. vs. Bholaram.
8. 6 F.A. No. 672/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Sampatbai Thru. Lrs. Sorambai.
9. 7 F.A. No. 673/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Sampatbai Thru. Lrs. Saurambai.
0. 7 F.A. No. 676/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kailash.
1. 7 F.A. No. 677/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shyam.
2. 7 F.A. No. 678/2014 State of M.P. vs. Gajanand.
3. 7 F.A. No. 679/2014 State of M.P. vs. Sukhram.
4. P.T.O. 81 No.8 Village Godhgaon Sr. F.A. Nos. Particulars of the Parties No. 1 F.A. No. 789/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Kanhaiyalal Thru. Lrs. Banshilal. .
2 F.A. No. 790/2014 State of M.P. vs. Banshilal. .
3 F.A. No. 791/2014 State of M.P. vs. Vishnu. .
4 F.A. No. 792/2014 State of M.P. vs. Saurambai. .
5 F.A. No. 793/2014 State of M.P. vs. Radheshyam. .
6 F.A. No. 794/2014 State of M.P. vs. Balwant Singh Thru. Lrs. Lakhansingh. .
7 F.A. No. 795/2014 State of M.P. vs. Geetabai. .
8 F.A. No. 797/2014 State of M.P. vs. Deced. Punjram Thru. Lrs. Jitendra. .
9 F.A. No. 798/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hariram. .
1 F.A. No. 800/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hariram. 0 .
821 F.A. No. 802/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jagannath. 1 .
1 F.A. No. 803/2014 State of M.P. vs. Shobharam. 2 .
1 F.A. No. 804/2014 State of M.P. vs. Murlidhar. 3 .
1 F.A. No. 805/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramcharan. 4 .
1 F.A. No. 806/2014 State of M.P. vs. Jamnalal. 5 .
1 F.A. No. 807/2014 State of M.P. vs. Radheshyam. 6 .
1 F.A. No. 808/2014 State of M.P. vs. Buddha. 7 .
1 F.A. No. 809/2014 State of M.P. vs. Hariram. 8 .
1 F.A. No. 810/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mulchand. 9 .
2 F.A. No. 811/2014 State of M.P. vs. Punjraj Thru. Lrs. Jitendra. 0 .
2 F.A. No. 812/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mohan. 1 .
2 F.A. No. 813/2014 State of M.P. vs. Mukund. 2 .
832 F.A. No. 814/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ambaram Thru. Lrs. Rameshwar. 3 .
2 F.A. No. 815/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramprasad. 4 .
2 F.A. No. 816/2014 State of M.P. vs. Kunwarji Thru. Lrs. Vishnu. 5 .
2 F.A. No. 817/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramchandra. 6 .
2 F.A. No. 818/2014 State of M.P. vs. Murlidhar. 7 .
2 F.A. No. 819/2014 State of M.P. vs. Siyanand. 8 .
2 F.A. No. 820/2014 State of M.P. vs. Ramesh. 9 .
3 F.A. No. 821/2014 State of M.P. vs. Girdhari. 0 .
3 F.A. No. 822/2014 State of M.P. vs. Girdhari. 1 .
3 F.A. No. 823/2014 State of M.P. vs. Leeladhar. 2 .
3 F.A. No. 824/2014 State of M.P. vs. Radheshyam. 3 .
3 F.A. No. 825/2014 State of M.P. vs. Babu. 4 .
84
P.T.O.
2. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the aforenoted 1036 first appeals as they arise out of the same proceedings from the different judgments passed by the District Judge, Dhar (M.P.), but are result of a common notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act and thus, are based upon similar facts and documentary and oral evidence of the land acquisition for acquiring 292.860 hectares of land village Madhavpur, 220.81 hectares of land of village Khandwa, 188.656 hectares of land of village Sagore, 155.790 hectares of land of village Suhagpura, 112.993 hectares of land of village Piplya, 121.997 hectares of land of village Asukhedi, 92.474 hectares of land of village Godhgaon and 19.326 hectares of land of village Kalyankhedi, for public purpose, namely, by the District Trade & Industry Centre, Pithampur, District Dhar, for establishment of 'Auto Testing Track' in District Dhar. 85
3. For the sake of convenience the facts are borrowed from F.A.No.497/2012 (Subhash vs. State of M.P. & Anr.), F.A.No.742/2012 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Subhash), F.A. No.311/2014 (State of MP & Anr. v/s. Antar Singh), F.A.No.218/2014 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Sugan Bai), F.A.No.595/2014 ( Banshilal vs. State of MP & Anr.), F.A.No.790/2014 (State of MP & Anr. vs.Banshilal), F.A.No.524/2012 (Abdul vs. State of MP & Anr.), F.A.No.726/2012 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Abdul), F.A.No.790/2012 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Rajendra) and F.A.No.543/2012 (Rajendra & Ors. vs. State of M.P & Anr.) of Tehsil and District Dhar.
4. The acquisition was initiated under preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published in official gazette on 11.8.2006. On 1.9.2006 a notification was published in the official gazette, in which a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was issued, identifying the land ad-measuring (Madhavpur 292.860 hectares, Khandwa 220.281 hectares, Sagore 188.656 hectares, Suhagpura 155.790 hectares, Piplya 112.993 hectares, Asukhedi 121.997 hectares, Godhgaon 92.474 hectares and Kalyancikhedi 19.326 hectares) of District Dhar.
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 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 86 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.
6. It is also alleged that the Collector passed an order of ban between the period 4.8.2005 to 11.8.2006 and prohibited the transaction in respect of the eight villages and therefore, no sale deed was executed during the ban period. According to the landowners, their land is near by to Pithampur industrial development area and around hundreds of factories and industrial units are running therein. The land which has been acquired is having high potential value. It is also stated that the acquired land is 6 to 10 Kms from Indore township and 4 to 6 Kms from Mhow township. The acquired land is levelled land and plenty of water and electricity is available. It is also stated that north side, the land is near to Mhow - Neemuch National Highway and towards south-east side, the land is 6 to 8 Kms. From the National Highway No.3 (Mumbai - Agra four lane) and prayed that the compensation of the un-irrigated land be awarded at the rate of Rs.1 Crore 50 lacs per hectare and for irrigated land at the rate of Rs.3 Crores per hectare or in alternative the land of the landowners be treated land for residential use and award compensation @ of 87 Rs.150 per Sq. Ft. With the aforesaid, it has been prayed by the landowners that the impugned judgment passed by the reference Court be modified accordingly.
7. The appellant - State of M.P. and General Manager District Trade and Industries Center, Pithampur filed their reply to the claim statements and opposed the averments made therein. According to them the LAO rightly assessed the compensation and passed the award on 28.5.2009. They opposed the reference application and prayed for dismissal.
8. The landowners along with their claim statements have filed number of sale-deeds. Sale deed Annexure A/2 is of 0.009 ½ hectares. They also filed sale deed of adjoining villages, copy of ban order imposed by the Collector Dhar, in respect of execution of sale deeds of the aforesaid villages of District Dhar. From the aforesaid ban, it is clear that no sale deeds were registered for the period, which has been mentioned in the ban order.
9. The reference court after appreciating the evidence of land owners and Government of M.P. and relying on the sale-deeds and ban order of the Collector has held that where there are several comparable sale deeds then on particular sale deed representing the highest value should be preferred unless there are other strong circumstances, which may justify different courses. The State Government failed to file any documents before the reference Court and only recorded the statements of Tarunjeet Singh Rana, General Manager witness No.1 and Nirmal Sharma witness No.2.
10. As the market value of the acquired lands had to be 88 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 rate within one year and after one year interest @ 15 % per annum.
11. The appellant / State aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the reference Court by which amount of compensation has been awarded as stated hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs and had filed appeals as per list and details given in the preceding paragraph.
12. In respect of eight villages Madhavpur, Suhagpura, Sagore,, Kalyancikhedi, Khandwa, Ansukhedi, Gondhgaon and Pipliya, learned counsel for the parties have drawn our attention to the documents and pleadings from F.A.No.742/2012 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Subhash), F.A. No.311/2014 (State of MP & Anr. v/s. Antar Singh), F.A.No.218/2014 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Sugan Bai), F.A.No.790/2014, (State of MP & Anr. vs.Banshilal) F.A.No.726/2012 (State of MP & Anr. vs. Abdul), F.A.No.790/2012 (State of MP & Anr. 89 vs. Rajendra), and reference given by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The appellants State have filed the appeal on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court is on the higher side. The land owners have also challenged the award on the ground that amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court is inadequate.
14. It has been submitted by learned Dy. Govt., Advocate that there is no evidence that land of the villages in question are surrounded by industrial area nor any material has been produced by the land owners to prove that the acquired land is 6 Kms from Indore or 4 Kms from Mhow. She also drew our attention to the statements of Nirmal Sharma and Taraunjeet Singh Rana and submitted that the documents filed by the State before the land acquisition officer has not been properly appreciated. During the course of arguments, she very fairly admitted that only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant State before the reference Court. She has also submitted that the distance of Mhow- Neemuch (Sakorkuti) main road of village Sagore is 3 Kms to 7 Kms from the main road. She has also drawn our attention to the map of Betma reserved forest. She submitted that Sagore - Maanpur road is going over and adjoining to the land of 8 villages acquired by the State Government for 'Auto Testing Track'. The same has been shown in colour blue. She submitted that though area of all the villages are compact and configure, but whole area is not adjoining to 90 the road and potential value of each of the landowners are different. The learned reference court committed an error in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,57,894/- for unirrigated land and Rs.48,92,630/- for irrigated land and prayed that all the appeals filed by the State Government be allowed and impugned order of the reference Court be set aside and the order passed by the land acquisition officer be uphold.
15. She placed reliance on the decision of the Basavva & Ors. v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors reported as AIR 1996 SC 3168 which reads as under :-
"Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the `Act'] acquiring 194 acres of land [out of which 33 acres is subject matter in these appeals for industrial development near Dharwad was published on October 30, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.8000/- to Rs.8080/- by his award dated August 22, 1985. On reference the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1.72 per sq. ft. by judgment and order dated October 11, 1988 which worked out to Rs.74,953/- per acre. On appeal by judgment and order made in FMA No.575/89 and batch the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 56,000/- per acre. Thus, this appeal by the claimants for further increase. It is also not in dispute that though the State wanted to file appeals against enhancement of the compensation, this Court as dismissed their Special Leave Petitions.
Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that 53% deduction is reasonable, as held by this Court but deduction of 65% towards the developmental charges by the High Court is not correct principle of law. Therefore, the High Court has committed error of law in reducing the same. He also contended that when the lands acquired are adjacent to national highway and compensation for acquisition, though subsequent to the date of notification in this case, for the lands in Kulkarni's case which is just disposed of, was granted at the rate of Rs.67,200/- per acre, the appellants also are entitled to the same benefit. The High Court, therefore, was in error in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per acre. Shri Sanghi, learned senior counsel 91 for the respondents resisted the contention. Having given our consideration, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the High court has committed any error of law in fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per acre? On the principle of deductions in the determination of the compensation, this Court in K. Vasundara & Revenue Divisional Officer, LAO [(1995) 5 SCC 426] has considered the entire case law and has held that the Court, in the first instance, has to consider whether sales relating to smaller pieces of lands are genuine and reliable and whether they are in respect of comparable lands. In the event the Court finds that such sales are genuine and reliable and the lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and fair market value of large tracks of land. The time lag for real development and the waiting period for development are also relevant consideration for determination of just and adequate compensation. Each case depends upon its own facts. For deduction of development charges, the nature of the development, conditions and nature of the land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc. and all other relevant circumstances involved are to be considered. In this case the facts recorded by the High Court are that Ex.P-10 sale deed is dependable sale but it is in respect of a small plot of land situated at a distance of more than k.m. It is has also found that the land in the area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. The High Court also noted that it takes years for development in those lands though, the lands are capable to be used for non-agricultural purpose. On those findings the High Court held that the market value under Ex.P-10 cannot form the sole basis but keeping in vies the developments the lands are capable to fetch compensation at the rate of Rs. 56,000/- after deducting 65%. For developmental charges, that deduction between 33-1/3 to 53% was held to be valid by this Court in several judgments. In Vasundara Devi's case 63% deduction was upheld. In view of the fact that development of land would have taken years, the High Court has deducted allotter 12%. Obviously, the High Court kept in view the fact that the lands under Ex.P-10 were situated at far flung places from the lands under acquisition and since the land takes long time for development it has given additional deduction of 12%, i.e. 53 + 12% = 65 in determination of the compensation. On the basis of the rationale referred to above, the principle adopted by the High Court cannot be said to be illegal. Thus considered, we hold that there is no justification for interference in the finding recorded by the High Court or to further increase the compensation.92
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs."
16. Learned Deputy Government Advocate also placed reliance on the decision of Trishala Jain & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Reported as 2011 (6) SCC 47. para 29,39,40,41,52 and 53 are relevant which reads as under :-
29. Veena Kumari Jain has described herself as wife of M. Kumar who appears to be Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, who was examined as a witness as he was a Member of the Selection Committee dealing with the acquisition of the land for the purpose of construction of Government Polytechnic Institute. In his examination he admitted that he was brother-in-law of Sh. Viresh Jain. As a member of that Committee he had a definite role to play in selection of the land for that purpose.
39. The law with regard to applying the principle of deduction to the determined market value of the acquired land is quite consistent, though, of course, the extent of deduction has varied very widely depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In other words, it is not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made uniformly applicable to all the cases. Normally the rule stated by this Court consistently, in its different judgments, is that deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land. In addition thereto, deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land.
40. This court in Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamallu had also observed that it is advisable to apply some deduction on account of exemplars of plots of smaller size relied upon by way of evidence by the parties.
This is the normal rule stated by the court but it is not free of exceptions. Similarly, it is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the court would not apply any deduction. This again would be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a given cases.
41. The case where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of "no deduction". Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of 93 such instances where the compensation paid is comparable i.e. exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of "no deduction" may be applied. These may be the cases where least or no deduction could be made. Such cases are exceptional and/or rare as normally the lands which are proposed to be acquired for development purposes would be agricultural lands and/ or semi or haphazardly developed lands at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is the relevant time to be taken into consideration for all purposes and intents for determining the market value of the land in question.
52. In the present case, there is evidence on record to show that plotting has been done only on part of the acquired land and the land is surrounded by colonies like ITBP, etc. but, there is no evidence to show that the acquired land itself is developed and is having all the required facilities and amenities. It may be a case where less deduction may be applied but certainly it is not a case of "no deduction". It also cannot be believed, in the absence of specific documentary evidence, that no further development is required on the acquired land.
53. The claimants, on whom the onus lies to prove inadequacy of compensation have not even stated that whether under the relevant laws they are expected to leave any part of their land open when they are permitted to raise construction on the land in question. Under these circumstances, we are unable to find any infirmity in the approach of th High Court in applying the principle of deduction. In our opinion, a deduction of 10% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditures would be justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. In Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as 2009 (11) SCC 171 (para 11 and 12) " 11. The purpose for acquisition of land was building a new city. A vast tract of land was sought to be acquired. Indisputably, in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the market value of the land was required to be determined as was obtaining in the year 1970 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. It is unfortunate that despite the fact that Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act as far back as on 3-2-1970 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21-5-1971, the award came to be passed only on 30- 6-1986 and that too probably, only having regard to the consequences ensuing in terms of Section 11-A of the Act.
12. A finding of fact was arrived at by the learned 94 Reference Judge that no sale instance was available for the lands situated in Village Wahal and there was no industrial or commercial development therein. The Pune-Bombay Highway was constructed in the year 1978. The MIDC pipeline was constructed in the year 1978. There was no railway station nearby the village. The villagers did not obtain any electricity connection. The land was a grassy land. In the absence of any example of sale being available, the Reference Court was required to take recourse to other methods of valuation. We do not find that enough materials had been brought on record to establish the yield of the lands sought to be acquired, which are admittedly agricultural in nature. In all fairness, the State should have brought on record the requisite information viz. the nature of the crop, the annual average yield, availability of irrigation facilities, etc. so as to enable the Reference Court to arrive at a correct decision in regard to grant of compensation under the Act.
18. In Mohammad Raofuddin vs Land Acquisition Officer, reported as 2009 (14) SCC 367 the Apex Court held (Para 11,12, and 14) :-
11. One of the preferred and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise.
12. In Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors.2 this Court had observed as under:
"While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land, (sic) which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section 5 of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on 95 fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate of the date of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the (2001) 7 SCC 650 compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land".
14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a land owner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it.
19. In the case of Subh Ram and Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported as 2010 (1) SCC 444 the Apex court held :- (Para 33)
33. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that having regard to two judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court relating to acquisition in the same village in Azad Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (RFA No.2 of 1991 decided on 30.9.1997) and Kabul Singh & Ors. vs. Haryana State & Anr. (RFA No.556 of 1994 decided on 13.5.1999) the compensation to be awarded should not be less than Rs.68/- (plus 25%) per sq.yd. In both cases Rs.68/- per sq. yard was awarded as compensation for acquisitions of land in village Jharsa in the years 1982 and 1983. It was also submitted that as the subject acquisition was two years later in 1984, at least 25% should be added to Rs.68/- per sq.yd. But the map of the area produced by the appellants show that the lands which are the subject matter of those two decisions are more 96 advantageously situated as they adjoin National Highway No.8 and are next to well developed areas (like Hidayatpur Cantonment, etc.) whereas the acquired lands are farther away from National Highway No.8 and any developed area. Hence, the said decisions, though relating to Jharsa village, are not of any assistance.
20. She further submitted that where the same instances (exemplars) relates to smaller piece of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large track of land, the same instances even of similar plots should be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure. She submitted that in the case of Trishala Jain & Anr.(Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case has taken the view that deduction on account of expenses of the development of sites could vary from 10% to 86.33% depending on the nature of the land, its situation, the purpose and stage of development. She drew our attention to sale-deed Exhibit A/2 dated 12.9.1996 and submitted that the said sale-deed was of very small piece of land, ie., only for a 0.009 hectare and was executed on inflated rates. The reference Court committed an error in relying on the same. She also submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time, in its different judgments, the deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. She contended that if the market value of the large property is to be fixed on the basis of a 97 sale transaction for a similar property, deduction is to be made taking into consideration the expenses required for development of that larger track and for "Auto Testing Track". She also submitted that market value was fixed by LAO on the basis of Collector guidelines. The learned reference Court committed an error in fixing the compensation. She also submitted that exemplars filed by the land owners was of a smaller piece of land and, therefore, not safe guidelines to determine the market value of the land and submitted that the sale deed was very small piece of land ie., only for 0.009 ½ hectares and was executed on inflated rates.
21. In reply, learned Senior counsel for the landowners has submitted that the question involved in these appeals has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in F.A.No.23/2012. The Division Bench after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties allowed the appeals of the land owners in part and held that the land owners are entitled to claim compensation at the rate fixed by the reference Court, with a deduction of 20% instead of 65% plus increased of 15% per year between the date of sale deed and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on account of the appreciation of market value. He submitted that order of the appellate Court merges with the order made in reference, and, thereafter, the appellate order cannot be challenged or attacked by another set of proceedings in the High Court under Section 54 of the Act. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhayankar V/s. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 and Kunhayammed & 98 Ors. v/s. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in 2000 (6) SCC 359 , wherein the Apex Court considering the principal of doctrine of merger has held that when a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before the superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way, it is the decree or order of the superior Court, tribunal or authority, which is the final binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the Court, tribunal, or authority below.
22. He also submitted that in respect of village Akoliya and village Kheda of District and Tehsil Dhar, the Division Bench of this Court have decided 133 First Appeals by judgment dated 20.9.2013 and the main judgment was passed in F.A.No.23/2012. The relevant paragraphs are para 32 to 37 which reads as under :-
32. It is a case of claimants landowners in all these appeals that the acquired land is surrounded by developed areas like "Special Economic Zone" and " Auto Testing Track". The acquired land of landowners is near by national Highway No.3 and Mhow - Neemuch 4-lane Highway and is very near to Indore to Mhow township. The area is also surrounded by Pithampur industrial development area. The facilities like electricity, schools, etc are very close to the acquired land. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the land in question has substantial potential and is located adjacent to developed industrial area. This fact is also corroborated by the statements of revenue officer and witnesses of land owners, which were recorded before the learned reference Court. There is no cross - examination on the aforesaid issues nor Government tried to examine any one on these issues before the reference Court.
33. The cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record is that it is a case of acquisition of land which is situated on a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and 99 facilities and further development of industrial activity was going on in nearby areas. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the land acquired at the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes as already noticed, the same was acquired for construction of "Special Economic Zone" and "Auto Testing Track". Therefore, it is a case, where the Court should apply minimal deduction, which will meet the ends of justice and would help in determining just and fair compensation for the land in question. We are of the considered view that 20% deduction from the market value of the acquired land would meet the ends of justice. Noticing the aforesaid evidence of high potential of the land and the amount of compensation which the landlord is going to receive, we disallow the increase of 15% per year between the date of sale-deed and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on account of appreciation of the market value.
34. For the above mentioned reasons, all the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The appeals filed by the claimants/landowners are partly allowed. The impugned judgment therein is modified to the extent that the land owners whose land were acquired for "Special Economic Zone" and "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.
35. In the result, all the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed in part to the extent as indicated herein above with cost.
36. Counsel fees, as per schedule, if certified.
37. Original judgment be retained in the record of First Appeal No.23/2012 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of First Appeal No.810/2011, First Appeal No.886/2011 and First Appeal No.824/2011 and all other connected first appeals.
23. He further drew our attention to the statements of Shyamlal (PW7) and ban order passed by the Collector Dhar. In respect of location of land he has drawn our attention to para no.4 of the award passed by the LAO in F.A.No.524/2012 (Abdul v/s. State of M.P. & Anr.), and submitted that at the time of acquisition roads were in existence. In respect of Mhow - Neemuch road, he submitted that this road was in existence from British time and national highway No.3 Agra - Mumbai road was in existence from last more than 100 100 years and now it is four lane road. It is also submitted that village - Sagore was within the municipal area. The land of all the landowners of 8 (eight) villagers are agricultural land near by Mhow - Neemuch road and Sagore - Maanpur road. He submits that these land have been acquired for establishment of "Auto Testing Track". As per procedure and policy prescribed the State Government they have to develop these lands and thereafter, they will allot the land to the industries after taking actual cost incurred by the Government from the allottee and they also executed lease deed with them. The premium of the land will be fixed on the basis of guidelines framed by the State Government and thus, the State Government is not going to suffer in any way. They will develop the land and charge lease rent from time to time on the basis of their cost, which includes the amount of compensation to be paid to the landowners. He also submitted that the market value of the land adjoining to the present landowners are very high and unless and until adequate compensation is awarded they can't purchase any agricultural land from the private person. He further submitted that these agricultural lands are the only livelihood of the some of the land landowners. They have no other occupation or business and there whole family are dependent on these agricultural lands. He also submitted that the issue involved in these appeals are identical and similar to batch of 133 first appeals decided by the Division Bench on 20.9.2013 (F.A.No.23/2012 and other connected appeals). He further submitted that in First Appeal No.23/2012, the reference court assessed the market value of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.65,62,500/- per hectare for irrigated 101 land and allowed the deduction of 65% towards development charges and determined the market value of un-irrigated land @ of Rs.22,96,875/- and has awarded compensation for un-irrigated land @ of Rs.22,96,875/- per hectare and Rs.34,45,312/- per hectare for irrigated land ie., one and half time of un-irrigated land and directed the appellant to pay the compensation accordingly. In the first appeal this court deducted 20% instead of 65% on account of appreciation of market value. He submits that on the same terms the appeals of the land owners be allowed and appeal filed by the State be dismissed.
24. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction.
25. As per statement of witness No.1 Tarunjeet Singh Rana, General Manager and Nirmal Sharma witness No.2 of the State Government and statements of landowners and the revenue inspector of the circle, the land of these 8 villagers are near to Pithampur industrial area. The Mhow - Neemuch and National Highway road are 5-6 Kms to these villages. The acquired land of the 8 villages have Sagore - Maanpur road, which connects to Mhow - Neemuch road. The Sagore - Mhow road is known as Betma road. Thus, the contention of the learned Government Advocate that there is no oral documentary evidence to prove the aforesaid fact is otherwise.
102
26. In the present case, the land is acquired for "Auto Testing Track" and thus, no much development is required. Thus, it is a case of less deduction. In our opinion a deduction of Rs.20% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditures would justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
27. The learned reference Court assessed the value at the rate of Rs.87,36,842/- per hectare for un-irrigated land and allowed the deduction of 65% and determined the market value of un-irrigated land at the rate of Rs.30,57,894/- per hectare and has awarded compensation for un-irrigated land at the rate of Rs.30,57,894/- per hectare. The reference court considering the fact that the LAO had enhanced 60% more for granting compensation to the irrigated land and, thus, added 60% on the amount of Rs.30,57,894/-, and awarded 43,92,630/- (Rs.3057894 + Rs.1334736 = Rs.4392630) per hectare as compensation for irrigated land and directed the State Government to pay compensation accordingly 65% towards development charges.
28. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that originally they valued their appeals as per column No.4 of para 1, which is part of the order, but they inspite of number of opportunities granted by the Registry as well as by this Court failed to make the payment of deficit court fees. It is also stated that their application filed under Section 149 of CPC was allowed but as stay was granted by this Court against the impugned award in favour of the State of MP subject to depositing the 30% of the amount and the aforesaid 103 amount of 30% has not been deposited by the State in number of cases and, therefore, the landowners have not paid the ad valorem court fees and to save their appeal they reduced the valuation of the appeal and paid the Court fees as per amended valuation. He submits that the market value of the lands is much more than the amount assessed by the reference court but as the landowners were not in a position to pay the amount of court fees, they restricted their claim to Rs.5,00,000/- only. He submitted that similar question has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Chandrashekar & Ors. vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported as AIR 2009 SC 3012 and held that they should not deprive for their rightful claim of compensation on the technical ground of want of requisite court fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit court fee. Para 13, 14 and 16 are relevant which reads as under :-
"13. From the observations as quoted herein earlier, we conclude that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Buta Singh (supra) has not reversed the decision in Bhag Singh (supra) and the law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) is materially different from the law established by this court in Bhag Singh (supra) since both the decisions dealt with different matters and moreover the Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) decision has in fact recognised the validity of the law laid down in Bhag Singh (supra). Therefore, we are of the opinion that following the judgment of Bhag Singh (supra) in the present case shall not be in conflict with the opinion of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Buta Singh (supra). Thus, in our opinion, it is settled that the High Court should not have deprived the appellants of their rightful claim on the technical ground of want of requisite Court Fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit Court Fee. This position is also supported by the decision of this court in a recent case viz. Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2008) 10 SCC 797] wherein it has been held that the High Court should have, after taking note of the facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded the higher compensation subject to the payment of the balance court fee.
14. Since we have come to the conclusion that the High Court 104 was not justified in denying the appellants compensation @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. after having recorded its finding that the value of the required land would be not less than @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. on a mere technical ground that the Court Fee paid by the appellants would entitle them to compensation of only Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft., we now proceed to consider the other submissions of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the High Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.100.50/- per Sq. Ft. in MFA No. 2366/2003 (LAC) C/W MFA CR.OB. No. 52/2004 [Asst. Commissioner & the LAO, Bijapur v Tukaram S/o. Shivaram Zinjade, arising out of LAC No. 180/1998], the appellants should also be awarded compensation at the same rate affording an opportunity to them to pay the deficit court fee. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Pal Singh v. UT of Chandigarh [AIR 1993 SC 225].
16. Thus, for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of that same court and this requirement is fulfilled in the present case. However, the requirement was that it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde and that due regard being given to all other attendant facts and circumstances it could furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land, is in our opinion the more important test for admission of such previous decision of the High Court for determination of the market value of the land acquired in the present case. On a perusal of the materials submitted before us by the appellants, we must conclude that the appellants had failed to satisfactorily furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land according to the decision of the same High Court in Assistant Commissioner & the LAO (supra) at Rs.100.50/-. Per sq. ft. Thus, we conclude that this plea of the appellants is not acceptable in the present case.
29. In reply, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel about their in-capacity/disinclination to pay the court fee is doubtful having regard to the fact that the landowners have received a substantial amount by way of compensation under the award made by the Collector and 30% of the amount as awarded by the reference Court.105
30. She further submitted that in some of the cases there was delay in depositing the amount. The appellants voluntarily restricted their claim and reduced the amount of compensation and, therefore, appellants appeal be restricted as per their amended claim.
31. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the land in question has substantial potential and is located adjacent to developed industrial area. This fact is also corroborated by the statements of revenue officer and witnesses of land owners, which were recorded before the learned reference Court. There is no cross
- examination on the aforesaid issues nor Government tried to examine any one on these issues before the reference Court. The cumulative effect of the documentary and oral evidence on record is that it is a case of acquisition of land which is situated on a reasonably good location surrounded by developed areas having civic amenities and facilities and further development of industrial activity was going on in nearby areas. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the land acquired at the potential of being developed for residential or institutional purposes as already noticed, the same was acquired for "Auto Testing Track". Therefore, it is a case, where the Court should apply minimal deduction, which will meet the ends of justice and would help in determining just and fair compensation for the land in question. We are of the considered view that 20% deduction from the market value of the acquired land would meet the ends of justice. 32. Noticing the aforesaid evidence of high potential of the land and the amount of compensation which the landlord is going to receive, we disallow the increase of 15% per year 106 between the date of sale-deed and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act on account of appreciation of the market value.
We therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, dismissed the appeals filed by the State of M.P. The appeals filed by the appellants
- claimants/landowners are allowed in part. 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.
33. In view of the decision of the Apex Court cited herein-
earlier, we allowed the prayer of the landowners who have reduced the valuation of their appeal by holding that they are entitled to claim the rate fixed by the reference Court in the impugned judgment with a reduction of 20% instead of 65% of amount on 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 judgment. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation which is now been directed to pay to the appellants-claimants/landowners who are appellant in these bunch of appeals and the same shall be paid if the appellants -
landowners shall deposit the requisite court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within 4 months from the date of supply of copy of 107 this order to this Court. It is also made clear that they are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation only after payment of deficit court fees to the High Court. If the deficit court fees is paid within specified time as fixed by this Court, the Registry will issue necessary certificate to them and then only they will be entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation.
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.
35. Counsel fees, as per schedule, if certified.
36. Original judgment be retained in the record of First Appeal No.497/2012 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of all other connected first appeals (1035 appeals).
(P.K. JAISWAL) (Smt. S.R. WAGHMARE)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss/-
108