STATE OF M P Vs. SURYA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 2241/2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is delay of 115 days in filing this appeal. For the reasons stated in the application supported by the affidavit and looking to the fact that no reply to the application for condonation of delay has been filed, delay is condoned. Heard on admission. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that the reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation on the basis of guidelines issued by the Collector for the registration of the document. It was further submitted that in respect of Medh the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation to the extent of Rs. 17,000/-. It is submitted that on these two grounds this appeal may be admitted. The facts of the case are that the land of respondent was acquired by the appellant by issuing a notice under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1889 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). The land of the respondent was acquired for the construction of canal. A notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23-7-2005. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation and on 3-2-2006 passed the award. The respondent aggrieved by the award sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Civil Court. Before the Civil Court both the parties led evidence. The Reference Court found that as per the guidelines issued by the Collector Annexure P-3, dated 31-3-2005, the minimum market value of the land in question can be assessed and accordingly assessed the market value of the land. So far as Medh is concerned, the Reference Court found that value of the Medh was Rs. 34,000/-, but considering the fact that the land being between two lands and its utility, 50% amount of compensation was reduced to Rs. 17,000/- and accordingly the compensation was enhanced on the aforesaid counts apart from other counts. So far as first contention of the appellant that the Reference Court ought not to have affixed the market value as per the order of Collector dated 31-3-2005 is concerned, we considered the contention of appellant and found that the aforesaid guidelines in respect of minimum market value was issued by the Collector under the provisions of M.P. Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short). From the perusal of aforesaid rules it is apparent that under Rule 4 there is provision for constitution of District Valuation Committee who shall prepare the market value guidelines as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 6. The aforesaid market value is to be affixed as per the provisions envisaged under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and these rules have been framed under Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. When the State Government on one hand is affixing minimum market value and they charge stamp duty on a document as per the guidelines issued by the Collector, then the State Government cannot deprive its liability for the payment of compensation if the land owner based his claim on the basis of aforesaid guidelines. The aforesaid guidelines were framed as per the Rules of 2000 and if the Reference Court relying on the guidelines assessed the compensation, no fault is found. The Collector being an Authorised Officer of the State has fixed the aforesaid minimum market value and the State is estopped from assailing the impugned award on the ground that the valuation fixed by the Collector as per Annexure P-3 was not correct. So far as contention of appellant that the value of land of Medh was erroneously enhanced to Rs. 17,000/- is concerned, the Reference Court took a view that the value of the land of Medh was Rs. 34,000/- but looking to its utility has reduced it to the extent of 50%. The aforesaid compensation appears to be reasonable. The respondent who has lost his land was entitled for compensation on the basis of market value and Reference Court has granted to the extent of 50% of the market value, we do not find any justification in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for Government enhancing such market value amount. In view of aforesaid we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.