1 F.A. No. 367/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA FIRST APPEAL NO. 367/1997 ......... Appellant : Union of India through Indian Railways Central Railway (Construction) Jabalpur, M.P. Versus ........ Respondents : Land Acquisition Case No. 44/95 1. Ram Siya Sharma S/o Chhakori Ram 2. Indra Bhan Sharma, S/o Chhakori Ram 3. Laxmi Kant Sharma S/o Indra Bhan Sharma 4. Shyam Kant Sharma S/o Indra Bhan Sharma All residents of Village Godhar, Tahsil Huzur, District Rewa, (M.P.) Land Acquisition Case No. 45/95 5. Ram Kumar S/o Budh Sen, R/o Village Godhar, Tahsil-Huzur, District Rewa, (M.P.) Land Acquisition Case No. 43/95 6. Ashok Kumar S/o Surya Bhan Prasad, 2 F.A. No. 367/1997 R/o Village Godhar, Tahsil-Huzur, District Rewa, (M.P.) 7. Yaduwansh Prasad S/o Surya Bhan Prasad, R/o Village Godhar, Tahsil-Huzur, District Rewa, (M.P.) 8. Narendra Kumar S/o Surya Bhan Prasad, R/o Village Godhar, Tahsil-Huzur, District Rewa, (M.P.) 9. Hari Wansh Prasad S/o Surya Bhan Prasad, R/o Village Godhar, Tahsil-Huzur, District Rewa, (M.P.) 10. Land Acquisition Officer, Satna, Rewa Rail Link Project, Rewa (M.P.) ................................................................................................ Appellant - Shri Sudhir K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellant/Union of India. Respondents - Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, Advocate. ............................................................................................... J U D G M E N T (06/05/2011) 1. The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected appeals F.A. No. 381/1997 (Union of India Vs. Neerendra Kumar Dwivedi and others) and F.A. No. 349/1997 (Raghvendra Mani Tripathi Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another). 3 F.A. No. 367/1997 2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”). 3. The learned Court below while deciding the reference under Section 18 of the Act has enhanced the award. 4. The land of respondents was obtained for the project Satna Rewa Railway Link. In total 38.590 hectares of land was acquired. Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act was issued on 20.05.1985. Thereafter, a Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01.08.1985. The possession of the land was obtained soon after 20.5.1985. The Collector on 10.08.1997 passed the award. The respondents submitted application to refer the matter to the Court. In this manner, the matter was adjudicated by the Court below by passing the impugned award. 5. Hence, this appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Act. 6. I have heard Shri Sudhir K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/Union of India and Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4 F.A. No. 367/1997 7. In the present case, the possession of the land was obtained soon after the publication of notice under Section 4 and 17 of the Act which was published on 20.5.1985. The respondents have been examined in the Court below and have submitted the documents in respect to the valuation of the land which has been acquired. The respondents submitted a sale deed, Exhibit P/2 dated 16.01.1987, another sale deed Exhibit P/10 is 10 months prior to the date of acquisition and according to the said sale deed, the land in that area was fetching Rs.17,000/- per acre. Although the respondents submitted two sale deeds but on bare perusal of the sale deed, Exhibit P/2 which is near about 1 ½ years after the date of taking possession of the acquired land, the valuation of the land was enhanced much higher, hence according to me, learned Court below rightly did not take into account the sale deed basis for assessing the compensation. However, according to the sale deed, Exhibit P/10 which is of the same Village throws sufficient light that valuation of the land in that Village was Rs.17,000/- per acre and, therefore, learned Court rightly based the said sale deed for awarding the compensation for the irrigated land. 5 F.A. No. 367/1997 8. So far as assessment of un-irrigated land is concerned, on bare perusal of para 11 of the Court below, this Court finds that by reducing the value to 1/3rd of the rate of irrigated land, the valuation of un-irrigated land has been assessed hence for un-irrigated land rightly it has been assessed that it would fetch Rs.12,695/- per acre which shall be the market value of that land. 9. The learned Court below in para 12 of the impugned award has rightly assessed the market value of “Padat land” at the rate of 10/- per sq. ft. on the basis of the oral evidence placed on record. The learned court below in respect of valuation of trees, maidh (mound) has concurred with the award passed by the Collector. The compensation of 30% solatium has been rightly awarded which is according to law hence interest at the rate of 9% has also been rightly awarded. No illegality or perversity is pointed out before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. Regarding First Appeal No. 349/1997) 10. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that for the same project under the same notification, the Division Bench of this Court in First 6 F.A. No. 367/1997 Appeal No. 580/1998 (Devendra Mani and another Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and others) enhanced the compensation @ one lac per hectare although the said land was of different Village Gudhar and the present land is of Village Ramkui. It is borne out from the evidence that both the Villages are adjoining to each other. The judgment passed by this Court in F.A. No. 580/1998 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this case also. 11. Resultantly, F.A. No. 381/1997 and 367/1997 filed by Union of India are hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.5000/- if pre-certified. The First Appeal No. 349/1997 filed by Raghvendra Mani Tripathi is hereby allowed to the extent indicated herein above with no order as to costs. {A.K. Shrivastava} Judge rao 7 F.A. No. 367/1997 FirstAppeal No. 367/1997 06.05.2011 Shri Sudhir K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant/Union of India. Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents. They are heard. Judgment dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 8 F.A. No. 367/1997