Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1235 (MP)

Mangu v. State of MP.

2010-12-15

N.K.MODY

body2010
JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern disposal of F.A. Nos. of which numbers are mentioned in the chart here in below as in all the appeals the Appellant s are the land owners and the Respondent is the State and in all the appeals the question involved is one and the same. In all the appeals the applications filed by the Appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (which shall be referred as the L.A. Act) for enhancement of the amount of compensation were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Full particulars of all the cases are as under: Sr. No. F.A. No. Area of land acquired Compensation determined by L.A.O. Claim in Appeal 1 515/08 0.84 Rs. 96,896/- Rs. 1,36,920/- 2 499/08 1.67 Rs. 77,284/- Rs. 2,72,210/- 3 500/08 2.43 Rs. 2,80,306/- Rs. 1,63,000/- 4 501/08 1.21 Rs. 63,444/- Rs. 3,96,096/- 5 502/08 1.67 Rs. 80,374/- Rs. 1,97,230/- 6 503/08 0.67 Rs. 77,286/- Rs. 2,72,210/- 7 504/08 1.30 Rs. 62,567/- Rs. 1,09,210/- 8 506/08 1.21 Rs. 1,39,576/- Rs. 2,39,610/- 9 507/08 2.00 Rs. 2,30,705/- Rs. 1,97,230/- 10 508/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 3,26,000/- 11 509/08 1.46 Rs. 1,68,414/- Rs. 2,37,980/- 12 510/08 1.04 Rs. 1,19,967/- Rs. 1,69,520/- 13 511/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 2,72,210/- 14 512/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,368/- Rs. 2,72,210/- 15 513/08 0.84 Rs. 96,896/- Rs. 1,36,920/- 16 514/08 1.46 Rs. 70,268/- Rs. 1,18,990/- 17 516/08 2.30 Rs. 2,65,309/- Rs. 3,74,900/- 18 517/08 1.46 Rs. 1,68,413/- Rs. 1,63,000/- 19 518/08 2.00 Rs. 1,84,564/- Rs. 3,26,000/- 20 519/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 2,72,210/- 21 520/08 1.67 Rs. 1,92,638/- Rs. 2,72,210/- 22 521/08 0.65 Rs. 74,980/- Rs. 1,05,950/- 23 522/08 0.65 Rs. 31,282 Rs. 52,957/- 2. Short facts of the case are that in all the appeals Appellant are the land owners of the land situated at village Khajuri, Tehsil Susner, District Shajapur. In all the cases the land was acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of construction of Ganeshpura Dam. In all the cases applications were filed by the Appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 19.5.2004, wherein it was alleged that Appellant s are the land owners, whose land has been acquired for the aforesaid purpose and the compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 9.5.2003 @ Rs. 81,521/- for irrigated land, Rs. 43,185/- for unirrigated land and Rs. 34,013/-for barren land. 81,521/- for irrigated land, Rs. 43,185/- for unirrigated land and Rs. 34,013/-for barren land. It was alleged that initially the land was acquired by the State Govt. vide Notification dated 6.2.98 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was assessed on the same rate as stated above but at the time of disbursement of compensation the claim of the Appellant in all the appeals was rejected on the ground that the status of the Appellant is of Govt. lessee, therefore, Appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation, hence claim of the Appellant was rejected vide order dated 31.7.2000 and the possession was taken. In the application it was alleged that after dismissing of the claim and also after taking the possession in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it was found that even if the Appellant is lessee, then too, Appellant is entitled for compensation, therefore, again Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.4.2002. It was alleged that since fresh Notification was issued on 26.4.2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the compensation could not have been assessed on the basis of the earlier Notification dated 6.2.98. It was alleged that compensation can be assessed only on the basis of subsequent Notification dated 26.4.2002. It was prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the case application filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned order, whereby compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer be set aside and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 3. This application was opposed by the Respondents by filing reply, wherein all the facts stated by the Appellant were denied. It was alleged that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.2.98 and possession has been taken on 31.7.2000. It is submitted that since it was the Govt. land, therefore, the compensation was not paid by the Respondent s to the Appellant and lateron fresh Notification was issued on 26.4.2002. It was alleged that the application filed by the Appellant is barred by time. It was submitted that application be dismissed. After framing of issues and also after recording of evidence copy application filed by the Appellant was dismissed against which present appeal has been filed. 4. It was alleged that the application filed by the Appellant is barred by time. It was submitted that application be dismissed. After framing of issues and also after recording of evidence copy application filed by the Appellant was dismissed against which present appeal has been filed. 4. learned Counsel for the Appellant argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. learned Counsel submits that there was no justification on the part of learned Court below in holding that Appellant is entitled for compensation on the basis of earlier Notification. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the Appellant. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of State of M.P. v. Ku. Rajiya Vano, 2003 (5) MPHT 570 , wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that compensation has to be determined on the date of publication of Notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is submitted that since the fresh Notification was issued on 26.4.2002, therefore, impliedly the Notification dated 6.2.98 came to an end and since Notification is of the year 2002, therefore, compensation has to be determined on the market value, which was prevailing on the date when Notification was issued. So far as the market value of the land is concerned, learned Counsel submits that Appellant has submitted documents Ex.P/1 to P/11, which goes to show the existing value of the land in question at the time of publication of Notification. It is submitted that since the Collector is fixing the area wise guideline for determination of value of the land and on that basis only the stamp duty is being charged and registration fee is being paid, therefore, for the purpose of payment of compensation also the same guideline is required to be taken into consideration. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of State of M.P. v. Surya Kumar, 2009 (III) MPWN 95 , wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that compensation of land acquired claimed as per rate fixed under the guidelines framed cannot be denied. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of State of M.P. v. Surya Kumar, 2009 (III) MPWN 95 , wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that compensation of land acquired claimed as per rate fixed under the guidelines framed cannot be denied. learned Counsel submits that though the evidence aduced by the Appellant in shape of Ex.P/1 to P/10, which goes to show that the value of the land was on higher side than the guideline. However, there was no reason for denying the compensation on the basis of Collector's guideline. 5. So far as limitation is concerned, learned Counsel submits that learned Court below committed error in dismissing the petition filed by the Appellant for enhancement of compensation on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that applications were filed on 19.5.2004 while the award was passed on 9.5.2003 but neither the award was communicated to the Appellant nor the was provided. It is submitted that Appellant was not also present in the office of Land Acquisition Officer at the time when the award was passed. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act the starting point of limitation is the date 18.5.2004 when the contents of the award came to the notice of the Appellant through their counsel. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of Madras High Court in the matter of S. Challammal v. Special Tahsildar, 1992 Supp. LAC 32, wherein Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that since service of notice was not in conformity with the provisions of the statute, therefore, it was found that Appellant came to know of the award immediately prior to issuance of the notice by her counsel in February, deserves acceptance. It was further held that it is well settled that where there is a failure to serve the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the date from which the time limit could run is only the date when the party actually or constructively came to know about the essential contents of the award. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that appeal be allowed and impugned award passed by the trial Court, whereby application for enhancement of the amount was dismissed, be set aside. On the strength of aforesaid position of law learned Counsel submits that appeal be allowed and impugned award passed by the trial Court, whereby application for enhancement of the amount was dismissed, be set aside. 6. Shri Vivek Phadke, Govt. Advocate, submits that since the award is dated 9.5.2003 and the objections were admittedly filed on 19.5.2004, therefore, on the face of it is barred by time. It is submitted that neither there was any prayer nor there is any provision for condonation of delay, therefore, the learned Court below rightly dismissed the application filed by Appellant holding that the same is barred by time learned Counsel submits that undisputedly the award is dated 9.5.2003 and all the Appellants, who are the claimants have admitted in cross-examination that they have received the amount through cheque and ample evidence is on record to demonstrate that cheque is of June, 2003, therefore, learned Court below has rightly held that Appellant is having knowledge of the award right from the date when the compensation was paid. learned Counsel for Respondent submits that for the purposes of value of land on the date of Notification the Collector's guideline cannot be the basis. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Section 47-A of the Stamps Act does not confer power to determine market value of an entire area, region or block and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 2895 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that value fixed in basis valuation Register for stamp duty purposes cannot be the basis for determination of value of the land. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal has no merits and the same be dismissed. 7. There are some important dates, which are having bearing for just disposal of these appeals. Sr. No. Date Particulars 1 6.2.98 Notification 2 31.7.2000 Possession 3 26.4.2002 Second 4 3.5.2003 Award 5 9.6.2003 Compensation 6 19.5.2004 Objections 7 14.1.2008 Impugned 8. 7. There are some important dates, which are having bearing for just disposal of these appeals. Sr. No. Date Particulars 1 6.2.98 Notification 2 31.7.2000 Possession 3 26.4.2002 Second 4 3.5.2003 Award 5 9.6.2003 Compensation 6 19.5.2004 Objections 7 14.1.2008 Impugned 8. Clause (a) of Proviso of Sub-section(2) of Section 18 lays down that the objections can be filed within six weeks from the date of Collector's award if person make the objection is present before the Collector at the time when the award was passed. As per proviso of Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12 Sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of Collector's award. In the matter of State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604 , wherein Apex Court held that limitation of six months under proviso to Section 18 runs from knowledge of the contents of award. In the matter of Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai v. Dy. Collector, AIR 1985 Guj 170 , it was held that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award, but he has to communicate essential contents of award. In the matter of Bhagwandas v. State of U.P. (2010)3 SCC 545 , while interpreting "within six weeks from the date of Collector's award" mentioned in Sub-clause (b) of the proviso of Section 18 of the L.A. Act, Hon'ble Apex Court held that the said expression has to be read to mean six months from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of essential contents of the award. It was further held that the expression be not interpreted literally because such an interpretation leads to absurd results inasmuch as person not having knowledge of award would be deprived of opportunity to seek reference to Court. In the present case at the time of passing of award Appellant s were not present before the Collector. There is absolutely no evidence that contents of the award were known to the Appellant. There is no evidence that at any point of time Appellant was intimated about the award passed by the Collector. Only on the basis of amount of compensation paid by cheque, it cannot be inferred that the award was communicated to the Appellant and the contents of the award were known to the Appellant. There is no evidence that at any point of time Appellant was intimated about the award passed by the Collector. Only on the basis of amount of compensation paid by cheque, it cannot be inferred that the award was communicated to the Appellant and the contents of the award were known to the Appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that findings recorded by the learned Court below that objections filed by the Appellant is not within time cannot allowed to sustain. Since neither the Appellant s were present before the Collector at the time of passing of award nor notice was served on the Appellant, therefore, it cannot be said that the objections filed by the Appellant were not in time. 9. So far the question of awarding compensation on the basis of Notification dated 6.2.98 is concerned, since subsequent Notification was issued on 26.4.2002, therefore, there was no justification in awarding the compensation on the basis of the first Notification. In the matter of Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1988 SC 1615 , Hon'ble Apex Court held that proceedings initiated under earlier notification should be deemed to have been superseded. In the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed and the impugned order passed by the reference Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Court below with a direction to decide the objections filed by the Appellant on the basis of evidence on record and on merits and keeping in view the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. v. Surya Kumar, Jawajee Nagnatham and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra). 10. With the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of. Let copy of this judgment shall be kept in the record of all connected cases.