STATE OF M.P. Vs. NARENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of this appeal as well as F.A. No. 61/95, The State of M.P. vs. Umesh Kumar and others, F.A. No. 62/95, The State of M. P. vs. Jaideo Singh and F.A. No. 63/95, The State of M.P. vs. Pradeep Kumar and others. As all these four appeals arise out of the common order passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 17/85, 20/85, 21/85 and 22/85 and two other references and all the four appeals were heard together, they are being decided analogously by this common order. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals lie in a narrow compass: - -

(2.) A notification to this effect was published. The landowners including said Narendra Singh, respondent in FA No. 60/95 Umesh Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sadan Kumar and Rajendra Kumar respondents in F.A. No. 61/95, Jaideo Singh, respondent in F.A. No. 62/95 and Kusum Kumari Devi respondent in F.A. No. 63/95 submitted their claims for compensation alleging that the market price of the land as on the date of notification was Rs. 30,000/ - per acre.

(3.) ON the request of the aforesaid claimants the references were made to District Judge, Hoshangabad. The reference of Narendra Singh was registered as MJC No. 20/85. Reference of Umesh Kumar and others was registered as MJC No. 21/85. Reference of Jaideo Singh was registered as MJC No. 22/85 and the reference of Kusum Kumari was registered as MJC No. 17/85. While deciding the reference, the 1st Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad held that the market value as assessed by the land Acquisition Officer is proper and the claimants are not entitled to any additional compensation on this count. The Reference Court also recorded a finding that the applicants have failed to prove that because of canal, the land of the claimants have been divided into two parts. Accordingly, on this ground also the reference Court refused to award any compensation. The Court below also recorded a finding that the claimants have failed to prove that any part of the land has been rendered useless because of the canal and on this ground also the Court refused to award any compensation.