Madhya Pradesh High Court
Land Acquisition Officer The State Of … vs Saudansingh on 16 June, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Pranay Verma, Maninder S. Bhatti
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
FIRST APPEAL No. 131 of 2010
RADHESHYAM
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 112 of 2010
HARIVALLABH (DECD) THR. SMT. UMADEVI AND 03 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 113 of 2010
NARAYAN
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ANR.
AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 114 of 2010
GHISIYA
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
FIRST APPEAL No. 115 of 2010
RAJKUNWAR BAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 117 of 2010
INDERSINGH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 118 of 2010
SAUDANSINGH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 119 of 2010
SURESH RAJPUT
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 120 of 2010
MAHENDRASINGH RAJPOOT
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
3
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
FIRST APPEAL No. 121 of 2010
MASUM BAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 122 of 2010
CHHOTUKHA
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 123 of 2010
MANGILAL
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 124 of 2010
SHRIMAD DANDISWAMI GOVINDASHRAM MAHARAJ
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 125 of 2010
MANSHARAM AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
FIRST APPEAL No. 126 of 2010
SURESH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 127 of 2010
JOGENDERSINGH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 128 of 2010
GANESH THR. SAVITRIBAI AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 129 of 2010
NARENDRA
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 130 of 2010
MANGILAL
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
FIRST APPEAL No. 132 of 2010
MISARBAI AND 02 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 290 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
LADKI BAI AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 291 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
Versus
KISHAN AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 292 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
DILIP AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 293 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MANGILAL AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 294 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
BALU AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 295 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BHURESINGH AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 298 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
MASUMBAI
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 299 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
RINKU KUNWARBAI
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 300 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
INDERSINGH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 301 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
JOGENDERSINGH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 302 of 2010
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
GANESH THR. SAVTRIBAI
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 303 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
SAUDANSINGH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 304 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
DONGAR
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 307 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
HARICHANDRA(DECD)THR.LRS RAMESH(DECD)THR. LRS VIJAY AND
ORS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 308 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
MISHARBAI AND 2 ORS.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 309 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
8
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
Versus
SURESH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 312 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
NATHU(DECD)THR. LRS KALU AND ORS. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 313 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
CHHOTU KHA
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 314 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
NARENDRASINGH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 315 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
MANSHARAM AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 316 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SARWAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 340 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
DHURV KUMAR
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 341 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
SURESH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 342 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRIMAD DANDI SWAMI GOVIND SHRI MAHARAJ
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 343 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
HARIKUNWAR BAI AND 02 ORS. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 344 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MAHENDRASINGH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 345 of 2010
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
NARAYAN
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 346 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
SUDHA KUNWARBAI
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 347 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
GHESIA
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 348 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BAHADUR
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 349 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BHAGWAN SAMOTIBAI AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 350 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DEC.HARIVALLABH THRU.LRS. SMT. UMADEVI AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 351 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
MANGILAL
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 352 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
KALYANSINGH
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 353 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANGIBAI
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 354 of 2010
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
BALIRAM AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 355 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
GOKUL
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 356 of 2010
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS
Versus
RAJKUNWAR BAI
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 475 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SUKHDEV AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 476 of 2010
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RADHESHYAM
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 696 of 2010
BAHADUR
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 697 of 2010
BHURESINGH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 698 of 2010
KISHAN
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 699 of 2010
SARVAN
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 700 of 2010
KALYANSINGH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 701 of 2010
MANGIBAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 702 of 2010
DILIP
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 703 of 2010
DOGAR
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 704 of 2010
SUKHDEV AND ANR.
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 705 of 2010
(DECD) HARICHANDR THR LRS (DECD) RAMESH THR.LRS VIJAY AND
ORS.
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 706 of 2010
SUDHA KUNWARBAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 708 of 2010
RINKU KUNWARBAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 709 of 2010
LADKIBAI
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
15
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 710 of 2010
GOKUL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 711 of 2010
BALU
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 712 of 2010
NATTHU
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 713 of 2010
DHURVKUMAR
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 714 of 2010
BHAGWAN ANR ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
FIRST APPEAL No. 715 of 2010
BALIRAM AND ANR.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 717 of 2010
HARIKUNWAR AND ORS.
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
ANR. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinay Gandhi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Vivek Patwa - Advocate for the respondents
Reserved on : 04.11.2024
Pronounced on : 16.06.2025
JUDGMENT
Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these appeals and
since they arise out of the same proceedings from different judgments passed by
IVth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), District Dhar but are result of a
common notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
(hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act’) and thus based upon similar facts, documents
and oral evidence of land acquisition for acquiring land for public purposes for
rehabilitation of displaced persons of the villages, which came under submergence
due to increase of height of Sardar Sarover Dam of Tehsil Dharampur in District
Dhar, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
17
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
judgment. For sake of convenience, facts are taken from First Appeal No. 131 of
2010 (Radheshyam versus Land Acquisition Officer State of Madhya Pradesh) and
First Appeal No. 476 of 2010 (State of Madhya Pradesh versus Radheshyam).
2. The appeals filed by the appellants landowners of village Sala are as under:
Serial No. First Appeal Name of the Parties' 1 112/2010 Harivallabh vs. State of M.P. and another 2 113/2010 Narayan vs State of M.P & Anr. 3 114//2010 Ghisiya vs State of M.P. & Anr. 4 115/2010 Rajkunwar Bai vs State of M.P & Anr. 5 117/2010 Indersingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 6 118/2010 Saudansingh vs State of M.P & Ors. 7 119/2010 Suresh Rajput vs State of M.P & Ors. 8 120/2010 Mahendrasingh Rajpoot vs. State of M.P& Ors. 9 121/2010 Masumbai vs State of M.P & Ors. & Ors. 10 122/2010 Chhotukha vs State of M.P & Ors. 11 123/2010 Mangilal vs State of M.P & Ors.. 124/2010 Shrimad DandiswamiGovindashram Maharaj vs State of 12 M.P. & Ors. 13 125/2010 Mansharam & vs Anr. vs.State StateofofM.P M.P&&Ors. Ors. Maharaj 14 126/2010 Suresh vs State of M.P & Ors. 15 127/2010 Jogendersingh vs State of M.P & Ors. 16 128/2010 Ganesh ThroughSavitribai&Anr.vsState of M.P & Ors. 17 129/2010 Narendra vs State of M.P & Ors. State of M.P & Ors. 18 130/2010 Mangilal vs State of M.P & Ors. 19 131/2010 Radheshyam vs State of M.P & Ors. 20 132/2010 Misarbai & Ors. Vs State of M.P & Ors. Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 20-06-2025 17:59:52 18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
3. The connected appeals filed by the State related to village Sala are as under:
Serial No. First Appeal Name of the Parties'
1 293/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Mangilal
2 298/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Masumbai
3 300/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. lndersingh
4 301/2010 State of M.P.& anr. vs.Jogendersingh
5 302/2010 State ofM.P. & anr. Vs. Ganesh .Thr. Savitribai
6 303/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Saudansingh
7 308/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Misharbai & 2 Ors.
8 309/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Suresh
9 313/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Chhotu Kha
10 314/2010 State of M.P.& anr.Vs.Narendrasingh
11 315/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs.Mansharam& anr.
12 341/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Suresh
13 342/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Srimad Dandi Swami Govind
14 344/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Mahendra Singh
15 345/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Narayan
16 347/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Ganesia
17 351/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Mangilal
18 356/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Rajkunwarbai
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
4. The appeals filed by the appellants/landowners of village Nimbola are as
under:
Serial No. First Appeal Name of the Parties' 1 696/2010 Bahadur vs State of M.P & Anr. 2 697/2010 Bhuresingh vs State of M.P. & Anr.. 3 698/2010 Kishan vs State of M.P & Anr. 4 699/2010 Sarvan vs State of M.P & Anr. 5 700/2010 Kalyansingh vs State of M.P & Ors 6 701/2010 Mangibai vs State of M.P &Ors. 7 702/2010 Dilip vs State of M.P & Ors. 8 703/2010 Dogar vs State of M.P & Ors. 9 704/2010 Sukhdev & Anr. vs State of M.P & Ors. 10 705/2010 (Decd.)HarichandraThr. Lrs.(Decd.) Ramesh Thr. Lrs, Vijah & Ors. 11 706/2010 Sudha Kunwarbai vs State of M.P & Ors. 12 708/2010 Rinku Kunwarbai vs. State of M.P & Ors. 13 709/2010 Ladkibai vs State of M.P & Ors. Gokul vs State of M.P & 14 710/2010 Ors. Balu Gokul vs State vs State of M.P of M.P & Ors. & Ors. 15 711/2010 Balu vs State of M.P & Ors. 16 712/2010 Natthu vs State of M.P & Ors. 17 713/2010 Dhurvkumar vs State of M.P & Ors. 18 714/2010 Bhagwan & Anr.vs State of M.P & Ors. 19 715/2010 Baliram & Anr. vs State of M.P & Ors. 20 717/2010 Dhurvkumar vs State of M.P & Ors. Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 20-06-2025 17:59:52 20 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
5. The connect appeals filed by the State related to village Nimbola are as
under:
Serial No. First Appeal Name of the Parties'
1 290/2010 State of M.P & anr. vs. Ladkibai
2 291/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Kishan
3 292/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Dilip
4 294/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Balu
5 295/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Bhuresingh & anr.
6 299/2010 State of M.P.&anr.vs.RinkuKunwarbai
7 304/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Dongar
8 307/2010 State of M.P.& anr.vs.Harichandra(decd.)Thr.Lrs.
Ramesh(decd.) Thr. LRs Vijay & Ors.
9 312/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Nathu(decd.) Thr. Lrs.
Kalu & Ors.
10 316/2010 State of M.P. & anr.vs. Sarwan
11 340/2010 State of M.P. & anr, Vs. Dhurv Kumar
12 343/2010 State of M.P. & anr. vs. Harikunwarbai & 2 Ors.
13 346/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Sudha Kunwarbai
14 348/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Bahadur
15 349/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Bhagwan Samotibai
16 112/2010 State of M.P. and another versure Harivallabh (dead)
through Lrs.
17 352/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Kalyansingh
18 353/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Mangibai
19 354/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Baliram & anr.
20 355/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Gokul
21 475/2010 The State of M.P. & anr. vs. Sukhdev & anr.
22 350/2010 State of M.P. & anr. Vs. Harivallabh (D) Thr. Lrs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
6. The facts of the case in brief are that a notification under Section 4(1) read
with Section 17(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 27.02.2004
in respect of compulsory acquisition of total 38.178 hectare of land in village Sala,
Tehsil Dharampuri, District Dhar for rehabilitation of displaced persons of
villages, which came under submergence due to increase of height of Sardar
Sarovar Dam of Tahsil Dharampuri, District Dhar. The notification under Section 6
of the Act in respect of village Sala was published on 14.05.2004, 11.05.2004 and
05.05.2004. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of average of the price paid
and exemplar sale deeds of seven villages of Shakalda Command area, which is 27
km away from present acquired lands, by award dated 23.12.2004 assessed the
market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.29,621/- per hectare in respect
of unirrigated land and Rs.47,165/- per hectare in respect of irrigated land.
7. In respect of village Nimbola, notification under Section 4(1) read with
Section 17(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 19.12.2003 for
acquisition of total 27.391 hectare of land for the same purpose. The notifications
under Section 6 of the Act were published on 06.02.2004, 25.01.2004 and 24.01.
2004. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of average of price paid and
exemplar sale deeds of seven villages of Shakalda Command area, which is 27 km
away from present acquired lands, by award dated 28.01.2005 assessed the market
value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.23,830/- per hectare in respect of
unirrigated land and Rs.34,624/- per hectare in respect of irrigated land.
8. The claimants/landowners being dissatisfied with the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, which
were referred to the reference Court for adjudication. The claimants then filed their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
claim statements before the reference Court submitting that the acquired lands of
village Sala and Nimbola are agricultural lands and are adjoining Teshil
Dharampuri of District Dhar. The same are having high potential value. It was
submitted that Shakalda Command area is tribal area. Prayer was made by them for
award of compensation at the rate of Rs.75 Lakh per hectare for irrigated land and
Rs.50 Lakhs per hectare for unirrigated land. The State Government filed its reply
to the claim statements and opposed the averments made therein. It submitted that
the Land Acquisition Officer assessed the market value of the land correctly and
did not commit any error in passing its award. The landowners filed four sale deeds
in respect of village Sala. They are exhibit P/2 dated 04.02.2004, exhibit P/3 dated
06.05.2022 and exhibit P/4 dated 11.02.2002 respectively in respect of unirrigated
land. Exhibit P/2 is in respect of 0.017 hectare of land, exhibit P/3 is in respect of
0.013 hectare of land and exhibit P/14 is in respect of 0.011 hectare of land.
Thereafter, the claimants examined witnesses in support of their case. The State
Government however, did not examine any witness on its behalf nor filed any
document before the reference Court.
9. The reference Court after examining the oral as well as the documentary
evidence available on record has held that the exemplar sale deeds filed by the
landowners are in respect of small pieces of land. It considered the average of the
sale deeds while deciding the compensation. It fixed the market value of
unirrigated land at the rate of Rs.11,71,968/- per hectare for irrigated land and at
Rs.17,57,952/- per hectare for irrigated land. Thereafter, it deducted 48% towards
development, etc. in respect to village Sala and re-determined compensation for
unirrigated land at that rate. In respect of village Nimbola, the reference Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
23
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
fixed the market value of unirrigated land at Rs.8,67,650/- per hectare and at
Rs.13,01,445/- per hectare towards irrigated land after deducting 50% towards
development, etc. It is against these awards that the appeals have been preferred by
the landowners as well as the State.
10. Earlier, these appeals were decided by this Court by judgment dated
20.06.2016. The same was challenged by the State of M.P. before the Apex Court.
By judgment dated 24.11.2022 in Civil Appeal No.8857-8858/ 2022 (SLP
No.19707-19708/ 2018 (State of Madhya Pradesh versus Radheshyam and others)
the Apex Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matter back to this Court for
fresh consideration to determine the compensation appropriately in accordance
with law and by taking into account the settled principles and all the relevant
evidence and material available on record for the irrigated as well as the
unirrigated land. This Court was also directed to re-determine the deduction to be
made towards development charges afresh taking into account all the relevance
evidence, facts and material on record.
11. The learned senior counsel for the landowners has submitted that the
reference Court in its award has deducted 65% and has calculated and determined
only 35% of the value of the land arrived at on the basis of exemplar sale deeds as
accepted i,e. Rs.69,76,000/- per hectare for unirrigated land. On the contrary, it
should have deducted 35% and should have determined 65% of the sale price
disclosed in the exemplar sale deeds. The market value of the acquired land should
have been calculated at Rs.1,04,64,000/- for irrigated land. The market value of the
acquired land, which was undisputedly irrigated, should have been determined to
be Rs.68,01,600/- per hectare and not Rs.36,42,400/- per hectare. The reference
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
24
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
Court has further erred in making a separate and further deduction of 48% as
development charges. A separate deduction under this head is not permissible. The
total deduction whether in the name of development charges or under any other
head can be between 20% to 53% depending on the facts of each case. The land
sold under the exemplar sale deeds and the acquired land were both undeveloped
agricultural land hence no deduction under head of development charges was
permissible. It is well settled that total deduction made is usually 1/3 rdand not
more. No further additional deduction of 48% after having already made a
deduction of 35% could be made. It is hence submitted that the market value of the
land be determined appropriately. It is also submitted that the statutory benefits
arising out of compulsory acquisition of the land also deserve to be awarded.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another(1998) 2 SCC 467, Kasturi and
others v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, Faridabad Gas Power Project,
NTPC Ltd. and others v. Om Prakash and others (2009) 4 SCC 719, Haridwar
Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh and others (2010) 11 SCC 581, A.P.
Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and others(2010)12 SCC 707, Anjani
Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and another (2010) 13 SCC 710,Banushankar
Oghadbhai Mehta v. Gujarat IDC Ltd. and another (2018) 13 SCC 722,
Mohd. Yusuf and others v. State of Haryana and others (2018) 16 SCC 105,
Reddy Veerana v. State of U.P. and others(2022) 14 SCC 252, BESCOM Ltd.
V State of Haryana and others,2023(4) CCC 204 and Chandrashekhar v.
Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 441.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
25
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the sale deeds
exhibited by the landowners cannot be relied upon. They are not in respect of
unirrigated land. In the sale deeds itself, it has been recorded that a Khaliyan has
been constructed over the land meaning thereby that the land is not purely
agricultural and is being used for commercial purpose also, even though the same
may not be diverted. The potential of the land covered under the sale deeds exhibit
P/2 to exhibit P/4 has not been shown hence they cannot be regarded as exemplar
sale deeds. It is submitted that the base price which has been taken by the reference
Court in respect of the acquired land is itself erroneous hence the enhancement as
claimed for by the landowners cannot be considered. Though before the reference
Court no evidence was led by the State but in the appeals preferred on its behalf
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been filed along with which
sale deeds have been filed from which it is evident that the market value of the
land at the relevant time was much less than what is contented by the landowners.
These sale deeds could not be filed before the reference Court for the reasons as
stated in the application and for the purpose of complete and effective adjudication
of the disputes between the parties, the same deserve to be taken on record. The
market value of the land as had been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was
perfectly legal in which no interference ought to have been made by the reference
Court which determination deserves to be restored. Reliance has been placed by
him on the decision of the Apex Court in Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of
India(2005) 12 SCC 59, Bhule Ram v. Union of India and another (2014) 11
SCC 307, Bhupal Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 2073, A.P. Housing
Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and others(2010) 12 SCC 707, Gafar and Ors v.
Moradabad Development Authority and another (2007) 7 SCC 614, Major
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
26
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
Gneral Kapil Mehra and others v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 262,
Chandrashekar v. LAO and another (2012) 1 SCC 390, State of M.P. and
others v. Kashiram and others(2010) 14 SCC 506, Trishala Jain and another
v. State of Uttaranchal and another(2011) 6 SCC 47, LAO v. Maharani Biswal
and others(2011) 12 SCC 324,Union of India and another v. Ram Phool and
another(2003) 10 SCC 167, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab
(2012) 5 SCC 432, Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And
others,(2001) 7 SCC 650andBhupal Singh v.State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC
801 to content that sale deeds pertaining to small pieces of land cannot be the basis
for determination of market value of large stretch of land. The burden to proof
enhancement in compensation is on the claimants. The Court has to exercise its
discretion within permissible parameters. It is further submitted that deduction up
to the extent of 75% can be made.
13. In reply, learned senior counsel for the landowners has submitted that
determination of base market value of the land as made by the reference Court is
perfectly justified, in view of the evidence available on record. The sale deeds filed
by the State along with the application under Order of 41 Rule 27 of the CPC are
not liable to be considered since no cogent reason has been given for their
nonproduction before the reference Court.
14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the record.
15. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in
determining the compensation which is mainly determination of market value of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
27
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1). The same is as
under:
23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation. –
(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land
acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into considerationfirst, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the
notification under section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the
taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of
the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time
of the Collector taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such
land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time
of the Collector taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition
injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any
other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the
person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of
business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the
profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration
under section 6 and the time of the Collector taking possession of the land.
[1-A] In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the
Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve
per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing
on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4,
sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the
Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation – In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any
period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any
Court shall be excluded.
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the
Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such
market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
16. The Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore v. T. R.D.
Narayan Setty1959 Supp (1) SCR 404, has indicated the methods of valuation to
be adopted in ascertaining the market value of the land on the date of notification
as under:
i) Opinion of experts.
ii) The price paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of
purchase of the land of acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands
acquired and possessing similar advantages and
iii) A number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective
profits of the land acquired.
17. It has been settled by various judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court
that in order to determine the market value of land under acquisition, certain
positive as well as negative factors have to be taken into consideration. In Villuben
Jhalejar Contractor, Dead by LRs v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, the
following principles have been laid down.
” 18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation
for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer
the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a
willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
29
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where
he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open
market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular
purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales
of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under
Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to
be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical
accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the
proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For
determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment
has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis
the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block
of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads,
leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the
hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20%
and 50% of the total price.‖
18. In Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 367,
the Apex Court held that comparable sale instances of similar land in the
neighborhood at the time of acquisition under the Act is best guide to arrive at fair
estimate of compensation.
19. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired
land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or
possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that
market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing
condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
30
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value
or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, uses to
which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institution. The existing amenities like water and
electricity have to be taken into consideration.
20. The issue as regards deduction to be made towards development of land
depends on various factors and there cannot be a straight jacket formula. Laying
down the principles for deduction to be made towards development of land vis- à-
vis largeness of area the Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special
Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, (1991) 4 SCC 506 observed as under:
“11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the
comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the
acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all
relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition
which is the only relevant factor. **
12. ** The land involved in these cases is of even level and fit for
construction without the necessity of levelling or reclamation. **‖
21. In UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (Supra) the Apex Court held that
deduction of one-third of price towards cost of development for housing scheme
involving construction of roads and other amenities is in consonance with its
various decisions. It was held as under:
“37. The direction about deduction of one-third of the said price
towards cost of development for the housing scheme involving construction
of roads and other amenities is in consonance with the various decisions of
this Court wherein this Court has allowed one-third deduction in the priceSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
31NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
towards cost of development. (See: Tribeni Devi v. Collector of
Ranchi [(1972) 1 SCC 480]; Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of
Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 719] ; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. V.T.
Velu [(1996) 2 SCC 538] ; K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. & Land
Acquisition Officer [(1996) 2 SCC 62]; Basant Kumar v. Union of
India [(1996) 11 SCC 542] .)
38. In Kausalya Devi Bogra [(1984) 2 SCC 324 : (1984) 2 SCR 900] on
which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the claimants,
this Court has laid down that for determining the market value of a large
property on the basis of sale transactions for a small property a deduction
should be given and that while in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T.
Adinarayan Setty [AIR 1959 SC 429 : 1959 Supp (1) SCR 404] a deduction
of 25% was indicated, there were certain other cases where the view taken
is that the deduction should be to the extent of one-third. We are, therefore,
unable to uphold the contention that the deduction of one-third which has
been allowed by the High Court on the value of Rs 110 per sq. yard calls
for interference by this Court.‖
22. In Kasturi and others (Supra),the Apex Court held that in respect of
agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
commercial purposes normally one-third amount of compensation has to be
deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land. It was
held as under:
“7. It is not debated that the sale transaction covered by Ext. P-7 relates
to a small plot and the land in question acquired is about 84 acres. This land
comprising of a large area is not developed although it has potential value for
residential and commercial purposes. In order to develop this land, roads
were to be laid, provision for drainage was to be made and certain area was
to be earmarked for other civic amenities. Thus, after leaving the area in the
land required for the purposes mentioned above, plots were to be made for
residential and commercial purposes by incurring expenditure for other
developmental works, such as providing electricity, water etc. The acquiredSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
32NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
land is not a small plot located in such a way that no other development was
required at all and it could be utilized as it is as a developed building site. It
is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which
has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd
amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of
compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations
depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for
development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to
develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial
purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or
hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction;
maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that
land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches.
So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also
varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing
more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the
basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of
such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed
area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large
and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the
developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. **‖
23. The Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu, (2003)
12 SCC 334 had observed that it is advisable to apply some deduction on account
of exemplars of plots of smaller size relied upon by way of evidence by the parties.
This is the normal rule but it is not free from exceptions. Similarly, it is neither
possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court
would not apply any deduction. This again would be dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of a given case.
24. In Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Supra) the Apex Court held as under:
“14. This Court in a catena of decisions has laid down that when a large
tract of land is acquired and sale instances produced for small plots as
exemplar, the best course for the court to arrive at a reasonable and fairSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
33NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
valuation is to deduct a reasonable percentage from the valuation shown in the
exemplar land and on the basis thereof to arrive at a just and fair valuation.
22. It is, therefore, implicit from the aforesaid discussion of case law and
precedent that whatever could be deducted towards development charges for
developing a particular plot of land could range between 20% to 75%. This is a
very wide bracket, no doubt, but an appropriate deduction befitting the
situation, location and the nature of the land justifying the deduction made
could be arrived at upon estimation of all the aforesaid factors. If the land is
already developed and could be used as a commercial/residential plot, what
should be deducted would be in the lower side whereas if development is to be
made, like filling up of the land, providing of roads, sewage and other civic
amenities, etc., the range of the deduction could be higher.
23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the
situation of the land, what could be an appropriate deduction in our estimation
is 1/3rd from the awarded amount towards development charges. We have
referred to the evidence adduced in this case which shows that the land is
agricultural land and therefore would require extensive development to be
utilised as a residential site.―
25. In Major General Kapil Mehra and others (Supra) the Apex Court held
that where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands usually the
highest of the exemplars will be considered. Where however there are several sales
of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth the average thereof can
be taken. But where the values disclosed in respect of two sale deeds are markedly
different it can only lead to an inference that they are with respect to dissimilar
lands. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to. If number of sale deeds of
same locality and same period with short intervals are available average price of
the available number of sale deeds shall be considered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
34
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
26. On the anvil of the principles as above the facts of the case may be
examined. The acquired lands are agricultural lands which have been acquired for
rehabilitation of villagers of those villages which came under submergence due to
increase of height of Sardar Sarovar Dam of Tehsil Dharampuri in District Dhar.
While determining the market value of the lands appropriate deductions are
required to be made.
27. Before the reference Court, the State did not examine any witness on its part
not filed any documents. The landowners examined witness, namely Radhe Shyam
as PW-1. In his statement, he stated that his land is situated at Khalghat
commercial square from where roads go to Khalbujurg, Morgadi, Khalkhurd, Sala
and Nimola. On east of his land are lands of village Khalkhurd and Khalbujurg
through which Bombay-Agra National Highway goes. On the west are Nimola and
Dharampuri lands and on north are Khalbujurg, Khalkhurd andDhamnod lands
from which Khalghat-Manavar via Jhabua Highway passes which meets the
Indore-Ahmadabad National Highway. He stated that in his land there are facilities
of road, electricity and water and they are having potential for residential and
commercial usage. From his cross-examination, nothing could be brought out by
the State to point out any discrepancy therein. On the contrary, he categorically
denied that his land is 2-3 km away from Agra-Bombay National Highway.
28. The landowners exhibited certain documents in support of their contentions
which included sale deeds exhibit P-2, P-3 and P-4 of village Sala itself. Exhibit P-
2 sale deed is dated 04.02.2004,which is closest in proximity of time to the date of
notification under Section 4(1) of Act 1894,which is 27.02.2004.By way of this
sale deed, Abdul Samad Khan and others have sold 1800 sq. ft. i.e. 0.017 hectare
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
35
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
of land in favour of Shakeel Khan of unirrigated and non-diverted land which is
situated towards north of Main Manavar-Dharampuri Road. It is stated in the sale
deed that though the sale consideration is Rs.1,67,000/- but the market value of the
land is Rs.2,43,000/- and stamp duty has been paid on the market value. Exhibit P-
3 is a sale deed dated 06.05.2002 executed by Nasru Muhammad in favour of
Sadeeran Bai in respect of 1375 sq. ft. i.e. 0.013 hectare of land for a consideration
of Rs.1,40,000/-. This land is also unirrigated and non-diverted. Exhibit P-4 is a
sale deed dated 11.12.2002 executed by Ram Kuwar Bai in favour of Kamal and
Santosh in respect of 1200 sq.ft. i.e. 0.011 hectare of unirrigated and non-diverted
land which is situated just 500 sq. ft. from the main road. The sale consideration is
Rs.67,000/-.
29. Though sale deed Exhibit P-2 is closest to the date of publication of
notification under Section 4(1)of the Act but the sale deeds Exhibit P-3 and P-4 are
also required to be taken into consideration upon which the per hectare value of
these lands, which are unirrigated lands, comes toRs.69,76,000/-. These lands are
of the same village where the acquired lands are situated and are in very close
distance to the same hence the market value of the acquired lands have to be
assessed on the basis of these sale deeds itself. It has not even been controverted by
learned counsel for the State that there is any material difference in the location or
nature of the acquired lands and the lands covered under the exemplar sale deeds.
It is also not in dispute between the parties that determination of compensation as
shall be made in respect of acquired lands at village Sala shall be fully and
squarely applicable for determination of compensation with respect to acquired
lands at village Nimbola.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
30. The only objection which has been raised by learned counsel for the State as
regards the lands covered under the exemplar sale deeds is that they cannot be
treated to be only unirrigated agricultural lands since there is akhaliyan situated in
all of them. However, from a perusal of the sale deeds, it is evident that besides
mentioning that akhaliyan is existing on the lands, there is no other indication to
demonstrate that the lands are anything but agricultural lands. A khaliyan is a
temporary shed or a hutment which is put up by an agriculturist on part of the land
only for the purpose of storage of the agricultural produce. It is not made for
residential or any other use. If for storage of agricultural produce, a temporary shed
is put up on a small part of the land, it cannot be said that the entire land changes
its nature and cannot be regarded as an agricultural land. This contention on part of
learned counsel for the State hence is without any merit.
31. Though before the reference Court, no evidence, either oral or documentary,
was led by the State but in the appeal preferred by it, application under Order 41
Rule 27 of the CPC had been preferred for taking certain sale deeds on record by
way of additional evidence. Firstly, the provision of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC
may be adverted to which is as under:
Order 41, Rule 27 CPC
―27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.–(1) The parties to
an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or
documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if —
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to
admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or[(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was notSignature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
37NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be
produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed,
or]
(b) he Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any
witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other
substantial cause,the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced,
or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an
Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.‖
32. In the application under Order 41Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the State it has
only been stated that the sale deeds filed along with the same could not be filed
before the reference Court and they are important in nature hence deserve to be
taken on record. There is no averment or statement whatsoever as to why the sale
deeds despite exercise of due diligence could not be filed before the reference
Court. It is not stated that the sale deeds were not in possession of the State during
pendency of proceedings before the reference Court or that despite exercise of due
diligence could not be produced at the time when the impugned award was passed.
It was incumbent upon the State to furnish justifiable reason while seeking
production of additional documents in this appeal why the documents could not be
produced before the reference Court which has not been done. The application
under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is absolutely cryptic and lacking in material
particulars and has not furnished any explanation for non-production of the
documents before the reference Court hence I am not inclined to allow the same.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
33. However, since the dispute between the parties has been pending for more
than two decades, in order to do complete justice between them, the sale deeds
filed by the State are being adverted to for sake of completeness. When those sale
deeds are perused, it is observed that they are of a period almost two-three years
prior to date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The first sale
deed is dated 18.05.2001 which is three years prior to the date of issuance of
notification under Section 4(1) hence cannot be regarded to be an exemplar sale
deed. The second sale deed is dated 22.03.2002. The same is in respect of land
which is three kilometers away from the main road and from village Sala. The
acquired lands are however situated in close vicinity to the main road. This sale
deed also cannot be regarded to be an exemplar sale deed. The third sale deed is
dated 10.06.2002 and the land comprised therein is also three kilometers away
from the main road and Abadi and can hence hardly be regarded as an exemplar
sale deed when the acquired lands are near the main highway. The fourth sale deed
is dated 26.03.2002. This is also in respect of land three kilometers inside the main
road and away from the Abadi, The fifth and sixth sale deeds are dated 10.05.2002
which also recites that the land comprised therein are away from the main road and
Abadi and in the rural area. The last sale deed is dated 08.07.2002 to the same
effect.
34. Thus, the sale deeds which have been sought to be brought on record by the
State are not in respect of lands which are in any manner similar to the acquired
lands. They are in respect of lands which are away almost three kilometers from
the main road and from the Abadi, whereas from the evidence which has been
adduced by the landowners, they have categorically demonstrated that the acquired
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
39
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
lands are situated very close to the Abadi area and at a short distance from the
main road and the highway. There is hence no comparison between the acquired
lands and the lands covered under the sale deeds produced by the State.
35. Thus, from the evidence which has been brought on record, it is found that
the market value of the acquired lands which has been assessed by the reference
Courti.e.Rs.69,76,000/- for unirrigated land and 1.5 times of the same for irrigated
land i.e. Rs.1,04,64,000 is correct. The learned Senior Counsel for the landowners
has not even seriously questioned the said finding. Though the same was
questioned by the learned counsel for the State but for the reasons as aforesaid the
contention in that regard stands negatived.
36. The next question for consideration is as to what would be the deduction
which would be required to be made from the market value of the acquired lands
arrived at as aforesaid. In this regard, a blatant error and/or blunder has been
committed by the reference Court. Upon arriving at the market value of the
acquired lands, it has without giving any reason or justification deducted 65% from
the said value. Thereafter it has further deducted 48% from out of the value arrived
at after deducting 65% from the market value. The deduction which has hence
been made by the reference Court is almost 82%. Deduction towards development
cost and other heads can be made only once after arriving at the market value of
the acquired land or at the time of arriving at the same. The deduction which is
made after arriving at the market value of the acquired land is only towards the
development and other costs which would be required to be incurred in respect of
the acquired lands. In making double deduction after arriving at the market value
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
40
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
of the acquired lands, the reference Court has acted illegally which hence cannot
be sustained.
37. In the present case, the acquired lands are agricultural lands which have been
acquired for rehabilitation of villages which came under submergence due to
increase of height of Sardar Sarovar Dam of Tehsil Dharampuri.While determining
the amount of compensation payable to the land owners, appropriate deduction are
required to be made.
38. From a perusal of the principles as laid down in the case laws referred to
aforesaid, it is culled out that deduction may vary from20% to 75% depending on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The same would depend particularly on
the extent to which the acquired land is required to be developed by constructing
roads and other amenities.
39. The acquired lands have been acquired for a housing scheme for establishing
a colony for the displaced persons. The entire acquired lands are agricultural lands
and most of the mare unirrigated. There would not be any requirement of any
levelling to be made therein as the land would be generally plain land without
having any obstruction like boulders, rocks, etc. For establishing a colony, the land
would only be required to be made hard and thereafter the work of carving out
plots therein would have to be done. There would be necessity of construction of
roads in the colony and providing amenities such as laying down electricity, water,
drainage lines and other amenities necessary for the inhabitants of the colony.
However, besides the aforesaid, no construction work of a large magnitude would
be required to be taken in respect of the land for making them fit for under taking
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
41
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
the project of construction of a colony. The actual construction of the colony
cannot be correlated to the development of the acquired land since even if the
acquired land had belonged to the State, it would have still been required to
construct the colony over that land. Thus, the development work which can be
taken into consideration in respect of the acquired land would only be the work
which would be done on the ground i.e. on the land and nothing more.
40. In the available facts and circumstances of the case and taking into
consideration the various judgments of the Apex Court from time to time in respect
of deduction to be made in respect of agricultural lands which were acquired for
and are having potential for construction of a housing colony, particularly in the
case of Kasturi (Supra) and K.J. Manohar Reddy (Supra), in my opinion, a
deduction of 35% from the market value of the acquired lands would be
appropriate.
41. The market value of the unirrigated land has been calculated as
Rs.69,76,000/- per hectare and for irrigated land at Rs. 1,04,64,000. After
deducting 35% from the same the market value comes to Rs.45,34,400/-
(Rs.69,76,000/- minus Rs.24,41,600/- per hectare for unirrigated land and for
irrigated land the market value comes to Rs.68,01,600/- (Rs.1,04,64,000/-minus
Rs.36,62,400/- per hectare.
42. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals preferred by the State
are hereby dismissed whereas the appeals preferred by the landowners are
partly allowed. It is held that the landowners are entitled for award of
compensation in respect of their acquired lands at the rate of Rs.45,34,400/- per
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52
42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.68,01,600/- per hectare for irrigated land. They
are also entitled for award of 12% per annum on the said amount as additional
compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of notification under
Section 4 i.e. 27.02.2004 upto the date of award i.e. 23.12.2004, 30% of the market
value as solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% per
annum on the total amount of market value, solatium under Section 23(2) of the
Act and additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act from the date of
award i.e. 23.12.2004 till expiry of one year from the date of dispossession
i.e.25.01.2006 and interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the period subsequent
thereto till date of payment as per Section 34 of the Act.
43. Let the original judgment be retained in the Record of First Appeal No.131
of 2010 and a copy thereof be placed in the Record of First Appeal No. 476 of
2010 as well as all other connected first appeals.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-06-2025
17:59:52