Rajkumar and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others

This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 24.12.2003 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bhopal (MP), in M.J.C. No.47/2002, arising out of Reference Application filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?) against the award dated 16.9.1994 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal in Revenue Case No.4/A-82/91-92.

In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 is the owner of the acquired land bearing Khasra No.146, 147, 148 and 149, area 0.37 acres situated at village Bag Sewaniya, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal and the aforesaid land was acquired by the appellant for construction of housing colony by a notification published in official gazette dated 13.3.1992 under sections 4(1) read with section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act

and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16.9.1994, in which compensation for acquisition of land was determined at the rate of Rs.40,134/- and for the house compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.2,995/-. The award was challenged by the respondents by submitting an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector, which was referred to the District Court, Bhopal, in which the respondents claimed that the market value of the acquired land and the house fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is very less. At the time of acquisition, market price of the land was Rs.100/- per sqft. and the cost of the constructed house was Rs.200 to Rs.250/- per sqft., therefore, accordingly market value of the acquired land and house be fixed. Apart from it, compensation for destruction of wire fencing, shed, tube well, motor, gate, standing trees shall also be awarded.

On behalf of the appellant, it was stated that compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper and does not require any interference.

Learned court below after recording the evidence passed the impugned judgment holding that the acquired land was purchased by the appellant in the year 1990 for consideration of Rs.53,000/- and the acquisition has been made on 13.3.1992, hence assuming escalation of the market price at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per year, market value of the land has been fixed at the rate of Rs.73,000/- and for the house market value has been fixed at the rate of Rs.30,000/- and accordingly with other statutory benefits award has been passed. Against the aforesaid judgment, appellant has filed this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law. Learned court below has enhanced the amount of compensation in an arbitrary manner without considering the evidence and facts of the case as well as the law. It is further submitted that the learned court below has

ignored the fact that the application submitted under section 18 of the Act for reference by the respondent no.1 to the Collector was time barred and the Collector referred the application to the District Judge under the direction of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.1104/2000 in which it was directed that the question of limitation could be decided by the District Judge. This fact has been mentioned by the learned court below in para 4 of the impugned judgment; but, no finding has been given in this regard. Even then neither the issue has been framed nor the evidence has been taken. Therefore, this case be remanded to the learned reference Court for adjudication of the question of limitation in accordance with law.

On behalf of the respondent no.1, none was present at the time of hearing, hence the appeal has been heard ex-parte.

Having considered the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record it is found that the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16.9.1994 and the application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act have been submitted to the L.A.O. on 4.1.2000. Apparently, it is time barred; but, the respondent stated in the application that he got the information about passing of the award after 27.10.1999 or 26.11.1999 when on behalf of the State return was filed in W.P.No.276/1999 in the High Court which was filed by the respondent and from the date of knowledge of the award, the application is within time. But, the aforesaid facts are required to be proved by the respondent before the Reference Court; but, no such evidence has been adduced by the respondent no.1 before the Reference Court. This may have happened on account of nonframing of the issue on that point by the learned Reference Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and requires to be set aside with the direction to the learned court below that to frame the issue on the point of limitation and after giving

opportunity to lead evidence on the point decide the question of limitation and record its finding afresh.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the learned court below with a direction to frame an issue on the point of limitation and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence on the said issue and decide the question of limitation as well as other issues afresh in accordance with law as early as possible. Parties are directed to appear before court below. As the respondent is not present, therefore, learned Reference court is directed to issue notice to him for his appearance.

With the aforesaid direction, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of with further direction that court fees paid by the appellant by returned to him and certificate be issued for authorization to get back from the Collector the full amount of court fees paid on the memorandum of appeal, i.e. Rs.5,987/-.