RAMPYARE DUBEY Vs. SECRETARY STATE OF MADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision the petitioner has called in question the order dated 19.11.2009 passed in Execution Case No.31- A/1991 by the III Additional District Judge, Sagar.

(2.) THIS Court in Civil Revision No.36/2010 has given the complete facts relating to the claim made by the petitioner. It is not disputed that the execution case was started on an application filed by the petitioner wherein he has also made a claim for grant of compensation for the houses constructed on the land, which were said to be owned by the petitioner. The only difference between the two is that the claim is also made for compensation for the houses constructed on the land said to be held by the petitioner.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY the claim was made by the petitioners- State that the entire land was not belonging to the respondent nor there was any construction made on the said land. The award was passed without taking into consideration such fact on 28.03.1969. Admittedly the procedure was started while issuing the notification under the Act way back in the year 1963. The entire procedure of acquisition was to be completed within a period of two years as is prescribed under the Acquisition Act. The 7 emergent provisions were required to be exercised indicating the emergency, urgent need of the land sought to be acquired, otherwise the provisions of hearing of objections were not curtailed. The settled law is that in case the proceedings of acquisition are not completed within a period of two years, the same stand abated. From the date of publication of the notification if it is seen that the proceedings were completed within the period of two years or not, the date of passing of the award would be relevant. UNDISPUTEDLY the award was passed on 28th March, 1969 and, therefore, from the notification so issued in the year 1963, subsequent notification issued on 14.02.1964, it would be clear that the proceedings of acquisition were not completed within a period of two years as is prescribed under the Acquisition Act. On this count alone, the land of the respondent was required to be released. However, the fact remains that the land was used for the purposes of construction of a dam. If the land is submerged, the respondent was required to be compensated. For the said purposes, the proceedings were rightly done. Ultimately, this Court has also held that the respondent is entitled to get the compensation of the land of Survey No.220/1. To that extent, the appeal filed by the respondent is allowed. If this land is already acquired or has gone in submergence, the respondent is required to be paid the compensation of the said land. If there was any construction made as is claimed by the respondent, the 8 compensation for the same was also required to be paid. It is the case of the respondent that though the compensation for the land has been assessed, the assessment of compensation for construction over the said land has not been done. The same was required to be done.