Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1180 (MP)

Rajendra Prasad Pathak v. State of M. P.

2014-09-22

ANIL SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition and the relied claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition reads as under :- (I) To quash the order and proceedings of respondent No. 2 directing for constitution of District Level Committee and awarding compensation for land treating the land irrigated but not diverted land. (II) To direct the respondents to award compensation on the basis of post of Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer treating the land diverted and to pay compensation with intent accordingly. (III)To grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favour of the petitioner. 2. Matter pertains to grant of compensation to the petitioner after the land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of a national highway under the National Highways Act, 1956. It is seen from the averments made by the petitioner in IA No.12305/2014 that during the pendency of the petition, an appeal of the petitioner before the Commissioner namely the appellate authority under section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been disposed of and the proceeding filed as is evident from the order filed as Annexure-P/12 to the IA. This order has been passed by the Commissioner and during the course of hearing of this petition today, Shri V.K. Shukla made an oral prayer for quashing this order of Commissioner mainly on the ground that the Commissioner has not appreciated the grounds raised in the appeal properly and he has also not taken note of the diversion of the land ordered by the competent authority including the Land Acquisition Officer vide Annexure-P/I-1 filed along with interlocutory application. Accordingly, Shri V.K. Shukla prays that now the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner for reconsideration as various important aspect of the matter have not been taken note of. It is also emphasized by him that if the order passed by the Commissioner is taken note of, it would be seen that it does not address various grounds raised in the appeal and is passed in a manner which does not show application of mind. 3. Shri Anubhav Jain points out that as the prayer made does not include a prayer for quashing the order of the appellate authority without amending the writ petition the prayer cannot be granted. 3. Shri Anubhav Jain points out that as the prayer made does not include a prayer for quashing the order of the appellate authority without amending the writ petition the prayer cannot be granted. That Apart, he emphasis that the Commissioner having decided the matter in accordance to the report submitted by the District Evaluation Committee, no further indulgence into the matter is called for. 4. We have considered the submissions made and we find that the question pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a national highway and payment of compensation. Merely because the petitioner in a specific term has not prayed for quashing of the order of the Commissioner but the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings pending before the Commissioner when the petition was original filed and now, in IA No.12305/14, a prayer is made for directing the Commissioner to consider all these aspect of the matter. In view of the above on the ground that the petition has not been amended, we do not propose to rejected the reasonable prayer made by Shri V.K. Shukla. 5. As is evident from the records the Commissioner has decided the appeal based on the report of the District Evaluation Committee but while doing so he has not taken note of the fact that the competent authority has already diverted the land and converted it into commercial purpose and now compensating it to be evaluated in accordance to the collector guideline and the rate indicated therein, all these aspect have not been taken note of by the Commissioner, even though in the order of diversion the Collector rate is indicated. That apart, if the order passed by the Commissioner is taken note of, it is a cryptic order, only directing for taking action in accordance to the recommendation of the District Evaluation Committee, it does not address various grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal under section 3G (5) for enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority for reconsideration as in the memorandum of appeal vide Annexure-P/7 various grounds have been raised by the petitioner which are not adverted to by the Commissioner. 6. Accordingly, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the appellate authority for reconsideration as in the memorandum of appeal vide Annexure-P/7 various grounds have been raised by the petitioner which are not adverted to by the Commissioner. 6. In view of the above, taking note of oral prayer made by the petitioner in the matter of quashing the order passed by the Commissioner, we accept the prayer and remand the matter back to the appellate authority namely the Commissioner to consider the diversion report and other grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal vide Annexure-P/7 and decide the appeal after hearing all concerned by speaking order within a period of 45 days of the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of. ...................