MANGU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall also govern disposal of F.A. Nos. of which numbers are mentioned in the chart hereinbelow as in all the appeals the appellants are the land owners and the respondent is the State and in all the appeals the question involved is one and the same. In all the appeals the applications filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (which shall be referred as the L. A. Act) for enhancement of the amount of compensation were dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that in all the appeals appellant are the land owners of the land situated at Village Khajuri, Tehsil Susner, District Shajapur. In all the cases the land was acquired by the State Govt. for the purpose of construction of Ganeshpura Dam. In all the cases applications were filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 19-5-2004, wherein it was alleged that appellants are the land owners, whose land has been acquired for the aforesaid purpose and the compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 9-5-2003 @ Rs. 81,521/- for irrigated land, Rs. 43,185/- for unirrigated land and Rs. 34,013/- for barren land. It was alleged that initially the land was acquired by the State Govt. vide Notification dated 6-2-98 under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was assessed on the same rate as stated above but at the time of disbursement of compensation the claim of the appellant in all the appeals was rejected on the ground that the status of the appellant is of Govt. lessee, therefore, appellant is not entitled for any amount of compensation, hence claim of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 31-7-2000 and the possession was taken. In the application it was alleged that after dismissing of the claim and also after taking the possession in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it was found that even if the appellant is lessee, then too, appellant is entitled for compensation, therefore, again Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26-4-2002. It was alleged that since fresh Notification was issued on 26-4-2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the compensation could not have been assessed on the basis of the earlier Notification dated 6-2-98. It was alleged that compensation can be assessed only on the basis of subsequent Notification dated 26-2-2002. It was prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the case application filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned order, whereby compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer be set aside and the amount of compensation be enhanced.

(3.) This application was opposed by the respondents by filing reply, wherein all the facts stated by the appellant were denied. It was alleged that Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 6-2-98 and possession has been taken on 31-7-2000. It is submitted that since it was the Govt. land, therefore, the compensation was not paid by the respondents to the appellant and lateron fresh Notification was issued on 26-4-2002. It was alleged that the application filed by the appellant is barred by time. It was submitted that application be dismissed. After framing of issues and also after recording of evidence application filed by the appellant was dismissed against which present appeal has been filed.