Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1017 (MP)

Malkhan Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-11-09

J.P.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 31.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sohagpur, in Land Acquisition Case No.52/1993, arising out of Reference Application filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the award dated 9.4.1984 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Tawa Project, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad, in Revenue Case No.145A/82 year 1981-82. 2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the land of the appellant’s ownership bearing survey No.223/1, area 1.90 acres situated at Village Bhiladiya, Tahsil Sohagpur was acquired for the Tawa Project and by the aforesaid award dated 9.4.1984 total compensation of Rs.12,915.50/- was awarded. On reference, learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the aforesaid award and also awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation on the head of separation of other part of the land of the appellant, along with interest. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence produced by the appellant in its proper perspective and has wrongly determined the market value of the land. The learned Court below has committed grave error in not considering the sale deed, Ex.P-1, on the ground that it is related to very small part of the land while the acquired land is also not very big in size. The sale deed, Ex.P-1, is relating to the land which was part of the survey number of the acquired land. Hence, the impugned orders be set aside and the appeal be allowed and the compensation be fixed in accordance with the price of the land mentioned in the sale deed, Ex.P-1 and accordingly compensation be awarded. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 4. Having considered the contention advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that vide sale deed, Ex.P-1, dated 5.9.1981 the appellant has sold part of his land bearing survey No.223/1, land area 0.5 acres, out of total area 7.72 acres, for consideration of Rs.7,000/-. In other words, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per acre. In other words, the land was sold at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per acre. The acquired land is also part of the same survey no. It is a genuine transaction and as per the statement of the appellant, this transaction took place before the proceeding of acquisition of land, which is not challenged. 5. The learned Court below has not considered the aforesaid sale deed because the acquired land is near about 2 acres and by the sale deed only 0.5 acres land was sold. In view of the learned Court below, this transaction was relating to very small piece of the land, therefore, it cannot be considered to determine the value of the aforesaid acquired land. The approach of the learned Court below is apparently wrong. The acquired land is not more than four times of the land sold by the sale deed, Ex.P-1. It also appears that this transaction had taken place one year prior to the acquisition and, therefore, looking to the non-consideration of the escalation of the price, the fact of less area of the land may be ignored and the market value of the acquired land can be fixed as per the market value of the land shown in the sale deed, Ex.P-1, which is Rs.14,000/- per acre. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the appellant is entitled to compensation of the land on the basis of the market value at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits and is also entitled to Rs.3,000/- for the damage caused due to separation of other part of his land along with other statutory benefits, like interest. However, from perusal of appeal memo it is evident that the appellant has limited his claim for enhancement only up to Rs.33,185/- on the date of filing of the appeal, i.e. 19.11.1998. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to calculate the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per acre and damage caused due to separation of the land at the rate of Rs.3,000/- and on that amount further statutory benefits be given including the interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 8. 8. Similarly, if the enhanced amount is found to be more than Rs.33,185.50/-, on the calculation made on 19.11.1998, then it should be restricted to Rs.33,185.50/- and thereafter this amount be paid along with interest, as per section 28 of the Act to the appellant. 9. No order as to cost. Ms. Sudipta Choubey for appellant; Akhilesh Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.