Kamlesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Kamlesh Kumar and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Disposition Writ Petition dismissed Court Chhattisgarh Decided Dec 05, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/496015

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/496015
Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Judge: Mr. R.S. Garg, J.
Decided On: Dec 05, 2000
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6162/2000
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - The pre-condition for making a reference under Section 30 of the Act is that either there is a dispute regarding apportionment or there is a dispute as to who is best entitled to receive the compensation.

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Writ Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 30; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamlesh Kumar and Others

Advocate Shri Alok Bakshi, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P. and Others

Advocate Shri Ranveer Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 30; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
Reported In: 2001(1)MPHT26(CG)

Excerpt

- - the pre-condition for making a reference under section 30 of the act is that either there is a dispute regarding apportionment or there is a dispute as to who is best entitled to receive the compensation.orderr.s. garg, j.1. from the facts, it appears that petitioners' land was acquired by the state govt. and certain compensation was fixed for being paid to the petitioners. it appears that compensation was paid ion 6-5-1997. the respondents krishnalal and reshamlal made an application to the collector/land acquisition officer to make a reference to the civil court under section 30 of the land acquisition act. the said application was not being decided, therefore, the said persons filed w.p. no. 4219/98 before the high court of madhya pradesh. the said petition was finally disposed of on 21-9-1998 with direction to the respondent land acquisition officer to decide the representation of krishnalal and reshamlal (respondent nos. 4 & 5) in this petition. the saidapplication was ultimately decided on 31-3-2000. the collector decided the application and found that present was a fit matter where a reference was required to be made under section 30 of the land acquisition act. the petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, have filed this petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india.2. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the compensation amount has already been paid to the petitioners, a reference under section 30 of the land acquisition act is not competent. he has referred to the provisions of section 30 of the act in support of his contention.3. section 30 of the land acquisition act says that a reference would be made by the land acquisition officer to the civil court, if there is a dispute relating to apportionment of the compensation amount or there is a dispute relating to the person to whom the compensation is to be paid. section 30 docs not say that simply because the amount has been paid to one party or the other, the land acquisition officer would be denuded of his power and would not be able to make a reference under section 30 of the act. the pre-condition for making a reference under section 30 of the act.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.S. Garg, J.

1. From the facts, it appears that petitioners' land was acquired by the State Govt. and certain compensation was fixed for being paid to the petitioners. It appears that compensation was paid ion 6-5-1997. The respondents Krishnalal and Reshamlal made an application to the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said application was not being decided, therefore, the said persons filed W.P. No. 4219/98 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said petition was finally disposed of on 21-9-1998 with direction to the respondent Land Acquisition Officer to decide the representation of Krishnalal and Reshamlal (respondent Nos. 4 & 5) in this petition. The saidapplication was ultimately decided on 31-3-2000. The Collector decided the application and found that present was a fit matter where a reference was required to be made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the compensation amount has already been paid to the petitioners, a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act is not competent. He has referred to the provisions of Section 30 of the Act in support of his contention.

3. Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act says that a reference would be made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court, if there is a dispute relating to apportionment of the compensation amount or there is a dispute relating to the person to whom the compensation is to be paid. Section 30 docs not say that simply because the amount has been paid to one party or the other, the Land Acquisition Officer would be denuded of his power and would not be able to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. The pre-condition for making a reference under Section 30 of the Act is that either there is a dispute regarding apportionment or there is a dispute as to who is best entitled to receive the compensation. The payment of compensation to one party or the other would, in any case, not affect the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Officer.

4. From the order Annexure P-3, it does not appear that the authority had no jurisdiction to make reference to the Civil Court.

5. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

6. Writ Petition dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chhattisgarh · 2000 Same Parties Kamlesh Kumar and Others vs State of M.P. and Others Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Mr. R.S. Garg, J. Acts & Sections Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 30; Constitution of Ind...

Constitution