Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 958 (MP)

Parasmal v. State of M. P.

2005-09-08

A.M.SAPRE

body2005
JUDGMENT This order shall also govern disposal of W.P. Nos. 2734/05, 2735/05, 2736/05, 2737/05, 2737/05, 2738/05, 2739/05, 2740/05, 2741/05 and 2742/05. Heard this petition finally today itself on advance copy being served upon the counsel for State as in my view looking to the issue involved in the case and the order which I propose to pass in these cases it is not necessary to file any counter-affidavit by the respondent. This petition is by the land owner against an order dated 11.1.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge. Kukshi in M.J.C. No. 20/2005. By impugned order the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the rekrel1ce made to the Civil Court (concerned A.D.J.) u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the Instance of petitioner i.e. land owner whose land has been acquired under Land Acquisition Act without giving any notice to the petitioner. Heard Shri A. Pahadiya, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Gajankush, learned Government Advocate for State on advance copy. Having perused the impugned order and having heard learned counsel for parties. I find that the learned Reference Judge did not take notice of the provisions of section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act which makes it obligatory on him to issue notice to the land owner and then decide the reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on merits. In other words it is obligatory upon the reference Court to first issue notice to the land owner before passing any award either in favour of the land owner or against him. In no case the reference can be answered and that too against the land owner by the reference Court without issuing any notice to the land owner and only on hearing the state as also the land owner whose land has been acquired in the acquisition proceedings. Since in the case no notice was issued to the petitioner and the reference was decided by the reference Court only on what was stated by the officers who appeared for State on the date, the impugned order rejecting the reference is not liable to be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, which alone is sufficient, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 11.1.2005 (Annex. P/1) is set aside. It is accordingly set aside. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, which alone is sufficient, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 11.1.2005 (Annex. P/1) is set aside. Reference Court is directed to decide the reference out of which this writ arises i.e. M.J.C. No. 20/2005 and other M.J.C. out of which other connected writs arise after affording opportunity to the petitioner as also to the State in accordance with law. Petitioner who is now already noticed of the proceedings need not be given any fresh notice of the reference proceedings. He is now to appear of his own before the reference Court on 17.10.2005 and produce copy of this order so that reference Court is able to proceed in the matter after affording opportunity to all the parties strictly in accordance with law and then decide the reference depending upon the case set up by the parties.