STATE OF M.P. Vs. TILAKRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State of M. P. has called in question the legal sustainability of the award passed by the First Addl. District Judge, Sidhi in MJC No. 3/82. The facts which are essential to be stated for disposal of the appeal are that the State of M. P. issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for brevity 'the Act') for acquisition of certain land situated in village Muthigava and Padra. The said notification was issued on 14 -5 -1979. In pursuance of the said notification and after following due procedure, certain land belonging to Tilakraj Singh, the original claimant, was acquired. The said land which situated in village Muthigava Chouhan Tola at Khasra No. 317, 323, 324, 326, 322, 325, 327, 327 admeasuring 0.50 decimal, 0.11 decimal, 0.50, 0.11, 0.19, 0.07, 0.34 decimal respectively. In respect of Mouja Khasra No. 339, 340, 341, 335 admeasuring 0.30, 30.58, 1.02 and 0.10 decimal respectively were acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer, the Collector under the Act, proceeded to determine the compensation and accordingly fixed Rs. 2000/ - per acre. The land owner along with his son late Urmila Prasad filed an application for enhancement of the amount and sought reference under section 18 of the Act as a consequence of which the matter was referred to the Civil Court. It was pleaded by the land owner before the reference Court that the land which had been acquired were irrigated; that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was absolutely grossly low that the valuation of the land could not have been less than 10 rupees per square feet and that the standing crops which was deposited on the land were not taken into consideration while determining the valuation.

(2.) TO substantiate the claim, the claimant/applicant examined certain witnesses and brought certain documents on record. The reference Court did not take into consideration the objection filed by late Urmila Singh as Tilakraj Singh was not the legal representative of said Urmila Singh and confined the adjudication to the land of late Tilakraj Singh.

(3.) ASSAILING the said award in question, it is submitted by Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate, that the determination of price by the reference Court is exorbitant and not permissible in law. It is contended by him that the reference Court has determined the price on the basis of sale deeds which are in respect of small parcels of lands. It is highlighted by him that the evidence which has been appreciated by the reference Court in regard to fixation of the price is neither just nor proper. It is also urged that when the basic factor, namely, determination of small patches of land is done is erroneous, the whole award is to be set aside.