MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHOPAL Vs. MITTHULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS a common question of law is involved in both cases (WP No.800/2004 Municipal Corporation, Bhopal v. Mitthulal and others and WP No.2076/2005 Municipal Corporation, Bhopal v. Sunderlal and others), both cases are being decided by this common order and facts are taken from WP No.800/2004 for the convenience. .

(2.) 1993 MPLJ 536], and it is submitted that this petition may be dismissed or petitioner be directed to file an appeal under section 54 of the Act.

(3.) TO appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, some facts may be stated. The petitioner made a proposal for the acquisition of certain lands belonging to the respondents to the Land Acquisition Officer. The proposal of the petitioner was approved and a notification under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (1) of the Act was published in the Gazette of M.P. dated 8.10.1976. Thereafter, another notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 11.10.1976 and the aforesaid lands were acquired. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation under section 23 of the Act and an award was passed. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents made a prayer under section 18 of the Act for referring the case to the civil Court for enhancement and adjudication of the proper compensation. This application was allowed and a statement of the case was made to the civil Court under section 19 of the Act. Before the reference Court, no notice was issued to the petitioner and the reference Court after extending the opportunity of hearing to the respondents and to the State decided the matter by the impugned awards dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure P -1 in WP No.800/2004) and dated 31.7.2004 (Annexure P -1 in WP No.2076/2005) and the compensation has been enhanced. These awards are under challenged in these petitions.