Union Of India & Anr vs Ranchod & Ors

3. The Government of India issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for acquisition of large area of land (4827.63 hectares) situate in various villages in Tehsil Mhow, District Indore for establishing two firing ranges, namely, Bercha and Hema for the artillery wing of the army. An area of 2917.160 hectares was acquired for Bercha Firing Range and 1910.464 hectares for Hema Firing Range. After receipt of notice under Section 9 of the Act, the landholders submitted objections. The Collector, Indore, after considering the objections of the landholders and making relevant inquiry, gave an Award regarding the compensation which was to be paid to the landholders. The landholders being dissatisfied with the Award of the Collector asked for a reference to be made to the court in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. The reference court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties gave an Award. It awarded compensation @ Rs.58,000 per hectare for unirrigated and uncultivable land and Rs.88,000 per hectare for irrigated land in Bercha Firing Range. With regard to Hema Firing Range compensation was awarded @ Rs.40,000 per hectare for uncultivable land, Rs.58,000 per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.88,000 per hectare for irrigated land. The landholders and also the Union of India preferred appeals against the Award of the reference court before the High Court. The High Court decided all the appeals by a common order, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeals. The High Court passed a short order and the relevant part of the judgment dealing with the controversy is reproduced below: -

10. There being total non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC we have no option but to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals.

11. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999 of the High Court is set aside. The appeals (both by the landholders and also by the Union of India) are remitted to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.

14. The appellant State of Madhya Pradesh preferred a review petition against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 27.6.2000. In the review petition the High Court took the view that the case did not fall within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly dismissed the same by a short order of eight lines.

15. Since in the present case the High Court has followed the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999, which has been quoted above and since we have set aside the said judgment and have remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, the judgments and decrees under challenge in the present appeals have also to be set aside.

16. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2000 and also the order passed in the review petition dated 22.3.2002 are set aside and the appeals are remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.