MUKESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of aforesaid appeals which are arising out of the common award passed by the Reference Court dated 7.4.2006 enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.8,000.00 per acre to Rs.15,000.00 per acre.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the lands of various survey numbers belonging to villages Mandideep, Manddehri, Jhalarkala and Nayapura Mewati were acquired for the industrial purpose by the appellant. The first notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 11.2.1983 which was subsequently amended on 2.3.1983. Thereafter the objections were invited. On receiving and after decision final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3.7.1984. The compensations were awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.8,000.00 per acre along with solatium 30% and interest. The reference was under section 18 of the Act which were decided by the Reference Court as per judgment dated 7.4.2006, whereby the amount of compensation has been enhanced from Rs.8,000.00 to Rs.15,000.00 per acre. The said enhancement relates to the land belonging to villages Mandideep, Manddehri, Nayapura Mewati and Jhalarkala. Being aggrieved by such judgment of enhancement, these appeals have been preferred.

(3.) PER contra Shri Ashok Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 contends that the Reference Court has rightly determined the compensation @ Rs.15,000.00 per acre relying upon the report of the Patwari which is called by the department prior to acquisition of the land. It is submitted that the statement of the Sub-Registrar is not supported by any guidelines, however, it cannot be relied upon. It is submitted by him that once two contrary reports are available while determining the compensation, the value of the land which is on higher side ought to be accepted, because those reports have been submitted by their officers. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the compensation has rightly been enhanced by the Reference Court by the impugned judgment.