Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 976 (MP)

Mahesh Kumar v. State of M. P.

2007-09-07

VINEY MITTAL

body2007
ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions being WP No. 3621/2007 and WP No. 4407/2007, as identical facts and common controversy is raised in these petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from WP No. 3621/2007. 2. The petitioners before this Court feel aggrieved by acquisition of their land for construction of main canal of Omkareshwar project. 3. The land owned by the petitioners is situated in village Jaimalpura. According to them, for the purpose of establishment of a school on the land in question, they had applied for diversion of user of the said land. Vide order dated April 26, 2005, the aforesaid permission was granted to the petitioners and their land was permitted to be diverted for establishing a school hostel etc. According to the petitioners, after the diversion order had been passed, they constructed the building of school and claim to have spent substantial amount for the construction and for development of the land. 4. The State of Madhya Pradesh with an intention to construct water canal in Omkareshwar Project issued a notification under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (1) (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Act), on January 23, 2007 proposing to acquire certain lands including the land of the petitioners. Urgency provisions were also invoked. On February 14,2007, a declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued whereby some land of the petitioners was also declared to have been acquired for the said purposes. 5; The Land Acquisition Officer on April 28, 2007 issued notices under section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act asking the landowners to accept the advance compensation in terms of the said provisions. The petitioners claim that the aforesaid notices had treated the land of the petitioners as mere agricultural land and as such, had proposed the payment of compensation on that basis. According to the petitioners, the respondents had not complied with the mandatory provisions contained in section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act, inasmuch as, the diverted land was liable to be assessed @ Rs. 300/- Sq. Ft., whereas the Land Acquisition Officer had proposed compensation at a very low rate. 6. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. 7. A reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents. 300/- Sq. Ft., whereas the Land Acquisition Officer had proposed compensation at a very low rate. 6. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. 7. A reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents. In the reply, a specific stand has been taken that the Land Acquisition Officer, while issuing the notices under section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act. had duly complied with the aforesaid provisions and had offered 80% of the compensation as estimated by the Collector. Respondents have maintained that 80% of the compensation for the acquired land under section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act was to be calculated on the basis of the estimation of the Collector and not on the basis of self evaluation by the landowners. The respondents have also pleaded that the petitioners would have opportunity to submit claim/objections under section 9 (3) of the Act when notices under section 9 are issued to them before the pronouncement of the award and therefore, all the pleas raised by the petitioners can be adjudicated by the Land Acquisition Collector while pronouncing the award. 8. The petitioner have even filed a rejoinder to the reply tiled by the respondents. Various pleas raised in the petition have been reiterated. 9. I have heard Shri Sunil Jain learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Government counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 10. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that while issuing notification under section 4 of the Act, urgency provisions were invoked. Thereafter a declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued and published. The petitioners have not at all taken any objections with regard to any procedural deficiency or default committed by the respondents in issuance of the notification under sections 4/6 of the Act. It is thus, apparent that entire procedure with regard to issuance of the aforesaid two notifications has been duly followed by the respondents. 11. The only objection raised by the petitioners in the present petition is based upon the provisions of section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act, when it is claimed by them that the respondents had not deposited 80% of the valuation of the acquired land, since urgency provisions had been invoked. 11. The only objection raised by the petitioners in the present petition is based upon the provisions of section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act, when it is claimed by them that the respondents had not deposited 80% of the valuation of the acquired land, since urgency provisions had been invoked. The said claim made by the petitioners has been refuted by the respondents in their reply. The respondents have maintained that the aforesaid 80%compensation had been offered to the petitioner-landowners and the aforesaid 80% compensation was calculated on the basis of estimated value given by the Collector. 12. It is thus, apparent that the only controversy in the present petition raised before this Court is as to whether while offering compensation in terms of section 17 (3A) (a) of the Act, 80% of the compensation amount has to be calculated on the basis of value of the land, as evaluated by the landowners themselves, or as estimated by the Collector. 13. In my considered view, at the stage while offering the said 80% of compensation, the estimated value, as suggested by the Collector, has to prevail. It is obvious that under the provisions of the Act, even if 80% of the said evaluated amount has been offered to the landowners, notices under section 9 of the Act are to be issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, affording the landowners an opportunity to file their claim petitions with regard to the market value of the acquired land. In response to the said notices, the landowners can always give their own valuation of the land/super structures/trees and tube-wells etc. and also can claim compensation for loss of business and for any other such deprivation as may be felt by them. 14. On receipt of aforesaid claim petitions, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to take into consideration the said objections and thereafter, pronounce an award under section 11 of the Act. If the landowners are still dissatisfied by assessment of the market value by the Collector, then they can seek further reference under section 18 of the Act before the civil Court. 15. If any such application under section 18 is filed by the landowners, within the period specified under the Act, then a reference shall be made by the Collector to the Court. 15. If any such application under section 18 is filed by the landowners, within the period specified under the Act, then a reference shall be made by the Collector to the Court. In the reference proceedings, thelandowners as well as the State have right to lead evidence to prove their respective claims with regard to the compensation/market value awardable for the acquisition of land. There is it further right of appeal against the award/order passed by the reference Court. Thus, the entire scheme of the Act clearly visualizes that there is no right of adjudication of valuation/market value at the stage prior to the pronouncement of the award, which in fact is now being claimed by the petitioners, when a grievance is made that the assessment/estimation made by the Collector is on the lower side. Granting of such an additional right is neither envisaged under the Act nor can be so inferred from the various provisions of the Act. 16. It is not in dispute that notices under section 9 of the Act have yet to be issued by the Land Acquisition Collector to the landowners. In these circumstances, as and when such notices are issued, the landowners including the petitioners, can always raise their claims against estimation/ valuation with regard to the compensation/market value of the acquired land and can even object to the estimation suggested by the Collector with regard to valuation of the land. 17. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find that the grievance made by the petitioners at this stage, cannot be accepted. 18. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. 19. However, before parting with this order, it is again made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to make appropriate claim in accordance with law, when notices under section 9 are issued by the Land Acquisition Collector.