Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1165 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Gangadhar Ram Mandloi

2012-11-08

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This first appeal has been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the award dated 23.12.1994 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Khandwa in MJC No. 50/1982. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since they are being reproduced in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned award. Suffice it to say that in order to establish a godown of Central Warehousing Corporation, the lands in question were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Necessary notifications under sections 4 and 6 were issued. The claimant Smt. Durga Bai submitted objections in regard to the valuation of the disputed land. Thereafter evidence was led by the Court below. The Land Acquisition Officer vide its order dated 6.8.1980 passed an award assessing the value of disputed land to be Rs. 10,000/- per acre (in total Rs. 94,500/-) for four mango trees, two Mahua trees and three Jamun trees. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of these trees as Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 75/- respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer further assessed the value of crops of Mango and other produce of the trees and that of well to be Rs. 1,200/-, Rs.480/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively. The valuation of Rehat, wire-fencing and kachchi drain was assessed to be Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively and thus assessed total compensation to be Rs. 1,05,805/-, Upon this amount 15% solatium w.e.f. 11.7.1978 till the date of passing of the award and the interest @6% per annum has been assessed and directed to be awarded Rs.1,46,580/-. 3. Being dissatisfied by the order of Land Acquisition Officer objections were filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and ultimately they were referred to the civil Court for its adjudication. 4. The written reply was submitted by State of M.P. However after verifying record learned counsel for parties submit that respondent No. 5 Central Ware - housing Corporation did not file any reply. Necessary issues were framed by the Court below. The claimant filed copies of the sale-deeds and also examined two witnesses. On behalf of respondent No. 5 Central Warehousing Corporation one witness was examined. Necessary issues were framed by the Court below. The claimant filed copies of the sale-deeds and also examined two witnesses. On behalf of respondent No. 5 Central Warehousing Corporation one witness was examined. The learned Court below assessed the value of land, tree four mango trees, two Mahua trees, three Jamun trees, crops of mango tree, 24 other trees, well, Rehat, wire fencing and Kachchi drain to be Rs. 20,000/- per acre, Rs. 2,000/-, Rs.50/-, Rs. 75/-, Rs. 1,200/-, Rs. 480/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively. The Court below further enhanced the rate of solatium to 30% and upon it the interest was awarded @12% for two years and 13 days. In total the Court below directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,24,192/-. Since a sum of Rs. 1,36,580/- was already paid to the claimant by subtracting the said amount it was directed that a sum of Rs. 1,87,612/- more be paid to the claimant. Learned Court below apart from the aforesaid amount of compensation directed to State of M.P. to pay interest Rs. 77,850/-. Thus, by enhancing the award the reference was disposed of by learned Court below. 5. I have heard Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Deputy Government Advocate for appellant and Shri Kapil Jain learned counsel for respondents and having heard them, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the present case Rajendra Rao Mandloi who is son of claimant Durga Bai was examined as PW2 and he has categorically stated that by notifications the lands in question were acquired on 13.1.1978 and 30.1.1978. Further he has stated that when the land was acquired at that juncture value of land was Rs. 324/- per square feet and in that regard he has filed certified copy of the sale-deeds (Ex.A/1to A/5) specifically he has stated that lands mentioned in the sale-deeds are adjacent to his land. This witness has also proved the four boundaries of his land. Further he has stated that the lands which were acquired were being used for agricultural purpose in which he used to grow Wheat, Jwar, Vegetables, Ground-nuts, crop of oil seed, etc. He has also specifically stated that he used to earn Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per annum from the agriculture produce. According to me, lands in question are in the Municipal limit. He has also specifically stated that he used to earn Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- per annum from the agriculture produce. According to me, lands in question are in the Municipal limit. The Railway Colony is also adjacent to his lands and other colonies were also developed before land was acquired since it has come in the evidence. In very specific words PW1 has stated that within the periphery of one kilometer from his land, Railway Station and market are located. Since the land of this witness is adjacent to Railway Station, the same as acquired in order to construct a godown of Central Warehousing Corporation it was having high potential value. 7. The other witness Ajit Kaprihan (PW1) examined on behalf of claimant has also stated that nearby the land which has been acquired, the Bank, Colonies, Post Office, NCC Office, BT College, Polytechnic College, ITI, etc. are there The land in question comes within the Municipal limit. He has further stated that a lodge namely Grand Lodge is half kilometer away from the land which has been acquired. 8. On close scrutiny of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses vis-a-vis to the evidence of Jagdish Singh (DW1) this Court finds that evidence of claimant’s side is quite reliable. The witness of State in cross-examination has admitted that ITI College is only 200 feet and Grand Lodge is 500 feet away from the land in question. In para 9 of cross-examination, he has also admitted that nearby the lands which have been acquired Polytechnic College, NCC Office, Home Guard Office, etc are there. Thus, I am of the view that award in question cannot be said to be on the higher side. 9. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Court below and I find that by correct appreciation of the evidence, the impugned award has been passed enhancing the amount of compensation which needs no interference. 10. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.