Full Judgment
1 F.A. 402/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA F.A. No.402/1997 .........Appellants:
1. Kewal 2. Vishram (Dead), S/o Bhawani through LRs:- (i) Smt. Mulia Bai, Wd/o Vishram (ii) Kamal Singh (iii) Jai Singh (iv) Balla All S/o Vishram, R/o Village Gora Tahsil Huzur, Bhopal, (M.P.) Versus .......Respondents:
1. State of M.P. through Collector Bhopal, (M.P.) 2. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineer Capital Project, Near Mata Mandir, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellants by - Shri Adil Usmani, Advocate Respondents/State by - Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT
(09/10/2012) Today is the auspicious day because the seed which was sown on 19.8.1962 has not grown up and is bearing the fruits which can not be reaped by the appellants because the land of the appellants were acquired soon after the notification under 2 F.A. 402/1997 Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on 19.08.1962 but adequate compensation has yet to be paid.
2. This First Appeal under Section 54 of the Act has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 23.04.1997 passed in M.J.C. No.22/1996 by learned IX Additional District Judge, Bhopal whereby the reference application of the appellants was accepted by holding that they are entitled to receive further amount of `.26,753/- including the interest @ 9% p.a.
3. The undisputed facts are that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.6.1962 and thereafter 19.08.1962 notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award holding that claimants are entitled for compensation @ `. 220/- per acre on 18.6.1963. Thereafter an application under Section 18 of the Act was submitted by the claimants/appellants' predecessor but the matter was kept pending and ultimately by order dated 18.06.1991 the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. In the Reference Court it was submitted by the claimants/appellants that they are entitled to receive compensation @ `.5000/- per acre. However, the learned Reference Court did not accept the proposition on the ground that no sale deed of Village Gaura has been filed and proved in the evidence by the claimants in which the consideration `.5000/- per acre has been shown. 3 F.A. 402/1997 3. The contention of Shri Usmani, learned counsel for the appellants is that by basing the cut off date 1.10.1955, compensation @ `. 220/-per acre has been awarded although the possession was taken soon after the notification under Section 6 of the Act and the possession was obtained in March 1963 and, therefore, the compensation is on lesser side. It has also been put forth by him that the land of claimants/appellants of Village Goura is adjacent to Village Aamkheda and Nayapura. However, the compensation @ `.2400/- per acre was awarded for that Village and in this context my attention has been drawn to Ex. P/4 which is the order passed in reference by learned II Additional District Judge,Bhopal in M.J.C. No.2/(64)/71 (Shri Asghar Mohd. Khan and others Vs. The Collector, Sehore) dated 13/1/1976. Hence, it has been put forth by learned counsel that since there is positive evidence of claimants/appellants that the rate was `.5000/- per acre in the vicinity of Village Goura, compensation should be paid @ `.5000/- per acre.
4. However, Shri Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State argued in support of the impugned award.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed.
6. The aforesaid dates of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act has not all in dispute. It is also not in dispute that possession of the land was obtained by the State Govt. in March, 4 F.A. 402/1997 1963. It is also not disputed that the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter on 18.6.1991. The question not hinges is as to what should be the adequate compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer has decided that land was fetching `.220/- per acre in Village Gaura. The Reference Court has also accepted the said rate.
7. On bare perusal of the testimony of Banshilal (PW-1) it is gathered that the land which was acquired is only 4 miles away from Bhopal Yard Club. He has also stated that Village Goura comes within the Municipal Corporation area and Ward not is 56. There is a pacca road from his Village to Bhopal. His Village Goura is having electricity and is adjacent to Village Sewaniya Gond. In Cross examination he has admitted that when the land was acquired the road was kachha and at that juncture facility of electricity was also not there. However, his statement stands unchallenged that the land which was acquired is nearby to Bhopal Yard Club.
8. Har Prasad (PW-2) has stated in para 2 of his testimony that the Bus Stand of Bhopal city is only 8-9 kms. away from Village Goura and nearby his Village other Villages Bishankhedi, Barkheda, Barkhedi, Sewaniya are there. There is no cross examination that the Bhopal Bus Stand is only 8-9 kms. away from Village Goura, the land of which has been acquired. 5 F.A. 402/1997 9. Jagannath (PW-4) has stated that the facility of telephone was available when the land of Village Goura was acquired. Further he has stated that Villages Prempura, Sewaniya, Aamkheda, Bishankhedi, Barkheda Nathu and Barkheda are adjacent to Village Goura. He has further stated that the land of Major Ajeem was in Village Aamkheda and in regard to Village Aamkheda compensation has been awarded @ ` 2400/- per acre in terms of the order passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in M.J.C. No.5/64 (Land Acquisition) decided on 30.04.1976 which is Ex. P/4. Thus, I am of the view that since the lands which were acquired are adjacent to the Bus Stand, Yarb Club etc. and further Village Goura is adjacent to Village Aamkheda for which compensation @ ` 2400/- has been assessed, in absence of any evidence in rebuttal on record, I am of the view that compensation @ ` 2400/- per acre should also be paid to Village Goura since the land of this Village is adjacent to that of Village Aamkheda.
10. I do not find any merit in the contention of Shri Usmani, learned counsel for the appellants that compensation should have been paid @ `.5000/- per acre because no sale deed of Village Goura has been filed and proved in order to indicate that the potential value of the said Village was `.5000/- per acre. Hence, I am of the view that appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation @ `.2400/- per acre. The appellants are also 6 F.A. 402/1997 entitled for the interest on the excess amount @ 9% and 15% per annum in terms of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. Let it be paid to the appellants.
10. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Counsel fee Rs. 2000/-, if pre certified. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao