Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Albel Singh on 23 July, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
1 FA-462-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF JULY, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 462 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
ALBEL SINGH
Appearance:
Mr. Sanjay Singh Kushwaha - Govt. Advocate for appellants / State.
Mr. Chetan Kanungo - Advocate for respondent.
JUDGMENT
This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC r.w. Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed against the Award dated 28-10-2021
passed by XIth District Judge, Gwalior in MJC (Land Acquisition)
No.203/2018 by which reference filed by respondent has been allowed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the parties that so far as the ground
raised by appellants with regard to the fact as to whether reference was
barred by time or not and whether respondent had accepted compensation
amount without protest or not is concerned, same has already been decided
by this Court by order dated 23.06.2025 in the case of State of M.P. And
Others Vs. Lokendra Singh in FA. No.264/2021 , therefore, for the aforesaid
grounds are duly covered by order passed by this Court in the case of
Lokendra Singh (supra) . However, it is submitted by counsel for appellants
that Reference Court should not have awarded compensation amount by
relying upon the Collector guidelines.
3 . Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that so far as
the Collector guidelines issued by Collector can be guidelines for
ascertaining market value and thus, the Reference Court did not commit any
mistake by relying upon the Collector’s guidelines.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
2 FA-462-2022
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. So far as the question as to whether Reference was barred by time
and whether respondent had accepted compensation amount without any
protest or not is concerned, this Court in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra)
has held as under:
“1. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short “the Act”) , has been filed against the order/Award dated 13.07.2020
passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge,
Gohad, District Bhind in Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 by
which reference filed by respondent has been allowed.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that against the award passed by
Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was made under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act. By impugned award, the Trial Court has enhanced the
compensation amount. It was informed by Counsel for the parties, that
being dissatisfied by the award passed by the Reference Court, the Land
owners have also filed First Appeal.
3. As a general practice, all the appeals arising out of one judgment and
decree or award should be heard analogously, but in the present case, it
was submitted by Counsel for appellant, that the State has not questioned
the quantum of compensation and the appeal is being pressed only on two
grounds i.e., that the reference was barred by time and since, the
respondent/land owner had received the compensation amount therefore,
the reference is not maintainable.
4. In view of the grounds of attack, this Court is of the considered
opinion, that large number of appeals are pending but since, the question
for consideration in both the appeals, i.e., by the State and the land
owners, are not overlapping each other and the appeal filed by the State
can be decided without adversely effecting the ground regarding quantum
of compensation which is the subject matter of appeal filed by land owner,
therefore, the appeal filed by the State is being decided.
5. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that a
notification was issued for acquisition of 2.52 hectares of land for
construction of canal and accordingly in Land Acquisition Case Number
21/2012-13/A-82, Award dated 17/9/2013 was passed and Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ ₹4,30,167 per hectare.
Being aggrieved by the said Award, respondent preferred an application
under Section 18 of the Act on 23.08.2014. The matter was referred by
Collector to District Court for answering the reference. The Additional
Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gohad, District
Bhind by Award dated 13.07.2020 passed in MJC Number 16 of 2015
allowed the reference and awarded ₹10,50,000/- per hectare by way of
compensation.
6. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the Court below, it is
submitted by counsel for appellant that reference application was barred
by time. It is further submitted that as the respondent had accepted theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:156243 FA-462-2022
compensation amount without any demur, therefore he is estopped from
filing an application under Section 18 of the Act and relied upon the
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs.
Satinder Singh reported in (1995) 3 SCC 330.
7. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 18(2) of
the Act, the reference application has to be filed within a period of 6
weeks from the date of Award in case the land owner was present.
However, if the Award is passed in absence of land owner, then reference
application could have been filed within a period of 6 weeks from the date
of receipt of notice under Section 12 of the Act or within a period of 6
months from the date of Award of Collector, whichever is earlier. It is
submitted that admittedly neither the respondent was present at the time of
passing of Award nor any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was given
to respondent. Immediately after the respondent came to know about the
impugned Award, then he gave an application for supply of certified copy
which was supplied on 1.8.2014 and accordingly on 23.08.2014 an
application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed for
making the reference. It is submitted that the words “from the date of the
Collector’s award” as mentioned in Section 18(2)(b) of the Act cannot be
given a narrow meaning and it would also include “from the date of
knowledge.” It is further submitted that the respondent has specifically
stated that he had received the compensation amount under protest. It is
submitted that even if the amount is received without any protest, still it
cannot be inferred that the land owner was aware of the contents of award
and therefore it is submitted that the acceptance of compensation amount,
whether under protest or, would not estop the land owner from filing an
application under Section 18 of the Act and relied upon the judgment
passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das &Orsvs State
Of.U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 545, Vijay MahadeoraoKubadevs State Of
Maharashtra (2019) 2 MPLJ 529 (SC).
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Whether reference was barred by time
9. Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act reads as under :
’18. Reference to Court.–(1) Any person interested who has not
accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector,
require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the
determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the
measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the
persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the
award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,–
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the
Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks
from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:156244 FA-462-2022
the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2); or within six months
from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first
expire.’
10. Admittedly, the respondent was not present at the time of passing of
award, therefore, Section 18(2)(i) of Land Acquisition Act, would not
apply.
11. Now, the next question for consideration is that whether any notice
was ever given by Collector under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act
or not?
12. The respondent, in para 3 of his application filed under Section 18 of
Land Acquisition Act, had specifically pleaded that no notice under
Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act was given. The appellants did not
deny this fact in their written statement. A solitary stand was taken by the
appellants that the respondent was aware of the award from the date of its
pronouncement. The respondent in his affidavit filed under Order 18 rule
4 CPC had specifically stated that no notice under Section 12 of Land
Acquisition Act was given. The respondent has examined
AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav who has stated that information regarding
passing of award was given by Kotwar by beat of drum.
13. First of all, it is made clear that no defence was taken by the
appellants in their written statement, that any public notice was given to
the villagers by Kotwar by beat of drums. However, the moot question for
consideration is that whether general notice by beat of drums can be said
to be sufficient compliance of Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act 1894
or not?
14. The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The Supreme Court in
the case of PremjiNathu v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 250
has held as under:
’15. What needs to be emphasised is that along with the notice issued
under Section 12(2) of the Act, the landowner who is not present or
is not represented before the Collector at the time of making of
award should be supplied with a copy thereof so that he may
effectively exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek reference to
the court.
16. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, this
Court was called upon to decide whether the expression “date of
award” is to be interpreted with reference to the time when the award
is signed by the Collector or from the date the affected party comes
to know about the same and held as under: (AIR pp. 1503-04, paras
5-6)
“5. … Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in law
no more than an offer made on behalf of the Government to
the owner of the property then the making of the award as
properly understood must involve the communication of the
offer to the party concerned. That is the normal requirement
under the contract law and its applicability to cases of award
made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Thus
considered the date of the award cannot be determined solelySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:156245 FA-462-2022
by reference to the time when the award is signed by the
Collector or delivered by him in his office; it must involve the
consideration of the question as to when it was known to the
party concerned either actually or constructively. If that be the
true position then the literal and mechanical construction of
the words ‘the date of the award’ occurring in the relevant
section would not be appropriate.
6. There is yet another point which leads to the same
conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative
decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of
the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said
decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the
property and in that sense, like all decisions which affect
persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision
should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of
the party affected by such a decision, either actual or
constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied
before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered
the making of the award cannot consist merely in the physical
act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the
office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of
the said award to the party concerned either actually or
constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of
the party whose rights are affected by it it can be said to be
made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of
the award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly
pronounced on the date previously announced the award is
said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party
is not actually present on the date of its pronouncement.
Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement an
award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can
be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later.
The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either
actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fair
play and natural justice the expression ‘the date of the award’
used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is
either communicated to the party or is known by him either
actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would
be unreasonable to construe the words ‘from the date of the
Collector’s award’ used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal
or mechanical way.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In State of Punjab v. QaisarJehan Begum, the principle laid down
in Harish Chandra case was reiterated and it was held: (AIR p. 1607,
para 5)
“5. … It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in
Harish Chandra case is that the party affected by the award
must know it, actually or constructively, and the period of six
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
6 FA-462-2022
months will run from the date of that knowledge. Now,
knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of
the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must
relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents
may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is
communicated to a party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the
party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents
of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party
is present in court either personally or through his
representative when the award is made by the Collector, it
must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award.
Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that
knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential
contents of the award.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. this Court interpreted Section
18 and laid down the following propositions: (SCC pp. 553-54, para
28)
“(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the
application within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s
award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the
application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not
present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the
notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make
the application within six months of the date on which he
actually or constructively came to know about the contents of
the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section
12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of
receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the
provision for six months for making the application on the
ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the
award.”
19. The Court in Bhagwan Das then held: (SCC p. 554, paras 30-31)
“30. When a person interested makes an application for
reference seeking the benefit of six months’ period from the
date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he
(or his representative) was not present when the award was
made, that he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act, and that he did not have the knowledge of the contents
of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing
the application for reference. This onus is discharged by
asserting these facts on oath. He is not expected to prove the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
7 FA-462-2022
negative. Once the initial onus is discharged by the
claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition
Collector to establish that the person interested was present
either in person or through his representative when the award
was made, or that he had received a notice under Section 12(2)
of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the contents of the
award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the
award can be established by the Collector by proving that the
person interested had received or drawn the compensation
amount for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the
acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a
case challenging the award or had acknowledged the making
of the award in any document or in statement on oath or
evidence. The person interested, not being in possession of the
acquired land and the name of the State or its transferee being
entered in the revenue municipal records coupled with delay,
can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge. In the
absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the
person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will
be accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to
do so.”
* * * *
21. A careful reading of the averments contained in Para 2 of the
application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the
notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was served upon
him on 22-2-1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy
of the award and filed application dated 8-4-1985 for making a
reference to the Court. This implies that the copy of the award had
not been sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that
he could not have effectively made an application for seeking
reference.
22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced
before the Reference Court to show that the copy of the award was
sent to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while
deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the
Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application
filed on 8-4-1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b).
The learned Single Judge of the High Court also committed serious
error by approving the view taken by the Reference Court, albeit
without considering the fact that the notice issued by the Collector
under Section 12(2) was not accompanied by a copy of the award
which was essential for effective exercise of right vested in the
appellant to seek reference under Section 18(1).’
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay MahadeoraoKubadeVs State
of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 8 SCC 266 has also relied upon the
judgment passed in the case of PremjiNathu (Supra).
16. Thus, it is clear that no notice under Section 12(2) of Land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
8 FA-462-2022
Acquisition Act was ever served upon the respondent and no copy of the
award was ever supplied to the respondent, therefore, a specific pleading
was made by the respondent, that when he came to know about passing of
award, then on 14-72014, he filed an application for supply of certified
copy and certified copy was supplied on 1-8-2014 and according to the
record, the application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was filed
before the LAO on 23-8-2014 and as per endorsement made on the
application, the Collector directed for taking action on 22-12-2014.
17. Now the only question for consideration is that whether application
was filed within a period of six months from the date of the Collector’s
award or not?
18. The moot question for consideration is that whether narrow
interpretation is 4 to be given to the words “from the date of the
Collector’s award or the date of knowledge of award would also mean
from the date of the Collector’s award?
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 has held as under :
’25. Invariably, the land-loser is required to make an application
under Section 18 of the Act to get the market value as compensation.
The land-loser does not get a right to seek reference to the civil court
unless the award is made. This means that he can make an
application seeking reference only when he knows that an award has
been made.
26. If the words six months from the “date of the Collector’s award”
should be literally interpreted as referring to the date of the award
and not the date of knowledge of the award, it will lead to unjust and
absurd results. For example, the Collector may choose to make an
award but not to issue any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act,
either due to negligence or oversight or due to any ulterior reasons.
Or he may send a notice but may not bother to ensure that it is
served on the landowner as required under Section 45 of the Act. If
the words “date of the Collector’s award” are literally interpreted,
the effect would be that on the expiry of six months from the date of
award, even though the claimant had no notice of the award, he
would lose the right to seek a reference. That will lead to arbitrary
and unreasonable discrimination between those who are notified of
the award and those who are not notified of the award.
27. Unless the procedure under the Act is fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory, it will run the risk of being branded as being
violative of Article 14 as also Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India. To avoid such consequences, the words “date of the
Collector’s award” occurring in proviso (b) to Section 18 requires to
be read as referring to the date of knowledge of the essential
contents of the award, and not the actual date of the Collector’s
award.
28. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation
of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:156249 FA-462-2022
his authorised representative), he has to make the application within
six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested
(or his authorised representative), he has to make the application
seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from
the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present
when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under
Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application
within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively
came to know about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such
notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months
for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of
the contents of the award.
29. A person who fails to make an application for reference within
the time prescribed is not without remedy. It is open to him to make
an application under Section 28-A of the Act, on the basis of an
award of the court in respect of the other lands covered by the same
acquisition notification, if there is an increase. Be that as it may.
30. When a person interested makes an application for reference
seeking the benefit of six months’ period from the date of
knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his
representative) was not present when the award was made, that he
did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that
he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award during a
period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference.
This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath. He is not
expected to prove the negative. Once the initial onus is discharged
by the claimant/person interested, it is for the Land Acquisition
Collector to establish that the person interested was present either in
person or through his representative when the award was made, or
that he had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or that
he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the award
can be established by the Collector by proving that the person
interested had received or drawn the compensation amount for the
acquired land, or had attested the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings
delivering possession of the acquired land in pursuance of the
acquisition, or had filed a case challenging the award or had
acknowledged the making of the award in any document or in
statement on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in
possession of the acquired land and the name of the State or its
transferee being entered in the revenue municipal records coupled
with delay, can also lead to an inference of constructive knowledge.
In the absence of any such evidence by the Collector, the claim of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
10 FA-462-2022
the person interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be
accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to do so.’
20. Thus the words from the date of the Collector’s award would also
include from the date of knowledge.
21. In the present case, it was specifically pleaded by the respondent,
that after getting information of award, an application was filed on 14-7-
2014 for supply of certified copy which was received on 1-4-2014 and as
per the record, the application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
was filed before LAO on 23-8-2014 and on 22-12-2014, an endorsement
was made by Collector to take necessary action. Thus, it is held that the
application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition was filed within six
months from the date of knowledge of impugned award, therefore, the
reference is held to be within the period of limitation.
Whether the respondent had accepted the compensation amount without
protest?
22. It is submitted by Counsel for appellant, that since, the respondent
had received the compensation amount, therefore, the reference under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was not maintainable.
23. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for the appellant.
24. The appellants in their written statement did not claim that the
respondent has accepted the compensation amount without any protest.
However, the respondent in para 10 of his cross-examination had admitted
that the compensation amount was received under protest.
AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav, who appeared as a departmental witness
did not claim that the compensation amount was paid. Thus, it is clear
that the respondent himself has admitted that compensation amount was
received under protest. Therefore, now the next question for
consideration is that if the land owner has accepted the compensation
amount under protest, then whether a reference can be made under Section
18 of Land Acquisition Act or not?
25. Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act reads as under :
’31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.–(1) On
making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender
payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons
interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to
them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies
mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person
competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the
title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the
Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court
to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such
payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise
than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under
Section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1562411 FA-462-2022
of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any
compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person
lawfully entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with
the sanction of 1 [appropriate Government], instead of awarding a
money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement
with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the
grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on
other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be
equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to
interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any
arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to
contract in respect thereof.’
26. Section 31(2) second proviso provides that no person who has
received the amount other than under protest shall be entitled to make any
application under Section 18. As already pointed out, the respondent, in
para 10 of his cross-examination, that the amount of compensation was
received by him under protest. The appellant has not controverted the
said fact by producing documents. AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav who
had appeared as a Departmental Witness neither refuted the said evidence
of the respondent, nor filed any document to show that compensation
amount was received by respondent without any protest.
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhan v. Ghaziabad
Development Authority, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343 has held as under
:
’11. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for GDA
was that since the compensation was accepted by the claimants
without any protest, the reference was not maintainable. In our
opinion, this contention is without any substance for several reasons.
In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab it was held that since the appellants
therein had filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the
Act, it manifested their intention. Consequently, the protest against
the award of the Collector was implied notwithstanding the
acceptance of compensation.
12. Similarly, in U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. v.
RishabhIspat Ltd. it was held that (SCC p. 252, para 8) the question
whether the compensation offered was accepted without protest is
essentially a question of fact to be determined on the basis of the
evidence on record. On facts, it was held in that decision that there
was nothing to suggest that the claimants had accepted the
compensation without protest.
13. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, although the
State/GDA did aver in its written statement that Chandra Bhan had
accepted the compensation without any protest, no issue was framed
in this regard, and, therefore, there was no question of any evidence
having been led to show that the claim was accepted without any
protest. That apart, SLAO gave his award on 7-12-1990 and Chandra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
12 FA-462-2022
Bhan had filed his objections to the award and sought a reference
within the prescribed time by making an application under Section
18 of the Act on 11-1-1991. His conduct clearly shows that the
award passed by SLAO was not accepted without protest.
14. Additionally, we are of the opinion that in cases where a large
number of claimants are involved, there will always be a few
claimants who may accept the award passed by the Collector. If
they are precluded from making a reference for enhancement of
compensation, it could lead to an anomalous situation where out of
very large number of landowners, some of them, located in scattered
pockets would be entitled to the compensation only as awarded by
the Collector while some of them in other scattered pockets would
be entitled to claim enhancement of compensation. There would,
therefore, be two distinct class of landowners similarly located and
placed but receiving different amounts of compensation for the
acquisition of the same land. Surely, this cannot be the intention of
Section 18 of the Act.
15. In the impugned judgment and order the High Court has laid
emphasis on the fact that since the claimants had accepted the
compensation awarded by SLAO without protest, the reference
under Section 18 of the Act was not maintainable. As we have found
on facts, this is incorrect and the judgment and order passed by the
High Court is, to this extent, unsustainable.
16. The learned counsel for the State/GDA relied upon Ashwani
Kumar Dhingra v. State of Punjab to contend that only a person who
has accepted the compensation under protest is entitled to ask for a
reference. The decision relied upon does not advance the case of the
learned counsel. That was a case decided on its own facts pertaining
to an individual in which one member of the family was satisfied
with the compensation awarded to him in respect of his parcel of
land and other members of the family were not and had accepted the
compensation under protest. The appellant in the cited case sought to
take advantage of the protest by other members of his family. This
Court, in that context, referred to Section 18 of the Act and held that
a person interested, in order to enable him to seek the remedy of
reference can do so if he does not accept the award made by the
Collector. That was also a case in which only an individual was
affected and not a large number of landowners.
17. The learned counsel also submitted that the protest letter of
Chandra Bhan that has been filed in this Court as a part of the paper
book does not contain any date, thereby implying that the protest
letter was not genuine. We cannot entertain this submission since it
involves a decision on a fact that was not considered either by the
Reference Court or by the High Court. However, we may only
observe that in the written statement filed by the State/GDA it has
not been stated anywhere when the compensation was accepted by
Chandra Bhan (without protest) and the quantum thereof. On the
contrary, a rather general averment has been made to the following
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
13 FA-462-2022
effect:
“That the claimant(s) has/have accepted the award and
has/have received the amount of compensation without protest
as such the reference is legally not maintainable and is liable to
be dismissed.”
18. In the absence of any definitive facts having been pleaded by the
State/GDA, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that Chandra
Bhan and the other claimants had accepted the compensation
without protest.’
28. Since, the evidence of respondent has remained unrebutted that he
had received the compensation amount under protest, therefore, this Court
is of considered opinion, that the reference was maintainable.
29. No other argument was advanced by Counsel for the State.
30. Accordingly, it is held that no illegality was committed by the
reference court by holding that not only the reference was maintainable,
but it was not barred by time.
31. It was informed by the Counsel for the parties, that the Land Owners
have also challenged the award on the question of quantum of
compensation.
32. Therefore, by keeping the question of quantum of compensation
open, the award dated 13.07.2020 passed by Additional Judge to the Court
of First Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Land
Acquisition MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 is hereby affirmed. The appeal
filed by the State/Appellants is hereby Dismissed.
33. Office is directed to keep the record of the Reference Court in the
Appeal filed by land owner.
34. No order as to costs.”
6. It is next contended by Counsel for Appellant that the LAO had
properly ascertained the market value of the land, but the reference Court has
relied upon the guidelines issued by the Collector for the purposes of
collection of stamp duty, therefore, illegality has been committed by the
Reference Court.
7. Considered the submission made by Counsel for the Appellant.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand Vs. Union of India
reported in AIR 2010 SC 170 has held as under :
“Whether the circle rates/guideline value rates can be relied upon to determine
the market value?
28. The appellant relied upon the Notification dated 21-1-1981 issued by
the Land Division of the Government of India, Ministry of Works and
Housing, notifying the schedule of market rates of land in different parts
of Delhi and various outlying areas–showing the minimum rates at Rs
400 per square yard for residential and Rs 800 per square yard for non-
residential plots. The question is whether the same could be relied uponSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1562414 FA-462-2022
for determination of market value in regard to land acquisition.
29. When the matter came up before this Court in the earlier round, the
counsel for the appellant had conceded that such rates could not form the
basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. In spite of it,
the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that though the
said circle rates cannot be the basis for determining the market value, it
may be taken note of as one of the relevant pieces of evidence indicative
of the market value.
30. There is some confusion as to whether such basic rates/guideline
value/minimum registration value rates could form the basis for
determining the market value.
31. This Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer and
several cases following it, including Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti
Rohini, U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. and Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar held that market value under Section 23 of
the LA Act cannot be fixed on the basis of the rates mentioned in the basic
valuation registers maintained for the purpose of detection of
undervaluation and collection of proper stamp duty.
32. In Jawajee Nagnatham the landowners had appealed to the Andhra
Pradesh High Court against the order of the Reference Court, claiming
increase, relying on the market value entered in the basic valuation register
maintained by the Revenue Authorities under the Stamp Act, 1899. The
High Court rejected the claim based on the basic valuation register, as such
register had no evidentiary value or statutory basis.
33. In appeals by the landowners, this Court in Jawajee Nagnatham case
held that the basic valuation register was maintained for the purpose of
collecting stamp duty under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 (as
amended in Andhra Pradesh); that Section 47-A conferred no express
power to the Government to determine the market value of the lands
prevailing in a particular area, village, block, district or region and to
maintain basic valuation register for levy of stamp duty in regard to
instruments presented for registration; that there was no other statutory
provision or rule having statutory force providing for maintaining such
valuation register; and therefore, such register prepared and maintained for
the purpose of collecting stamp duty had no statutory base or force and
cannot form the basis to determine the market value of any acquired land
under Section 23 of the LA Act.
34. Jasti Rohini also arose from Andhra Pradesh and followed Jawajee
Nagnatham and held that the basic valuation register had no statutory
basis.
35. The case of U.P. Jal Nigam arose from Uttar Pradesh. In that case, the
landowner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to U.P. Jal Nigam to
pay compensation in regard to lands acquired on the basis of market value
assessed by the Collector, Lucknow. The High Court allowed the petition
and directed the U.P. Jal Nigam to pay compensation at the rate
determined by the Collector, on the basis of the basic valuation circularsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1562415 FA-462-2022
issued for the purposes of stamp duty.
36. This Court in U.P. Jal Nigam case reversed the decision of the High
Court following its earlier decision in Jawajee Nagnatham and held that
the Collector committed an error in determining the market value on the
basis of basic valuation circulars.
37. Jawajee Nagnatham was again followed in Bipin Kumar which is
another case from Uttar Pradesh.
38. All the abovementioned four decisions rejected the value entered in the
basic valuation registers, on the ground that they had no statutory basis
having regard to the provisions of the stamp law applicable in the
respective States (Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) and cannot be the
basis for determination of market value under Section 23 of the LA Act.
39. There is also another set of decisions considering if such circle rates
could be considered as prima facie basis, for the purposes of ascertaining
the market value and determining whether there was any undervaluation of
the instrument for the purposes of stamp duty, which is a revenue
collection exercise. We may refer to one of those cases, that is, Ramesh
Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector wherein this Court held:
(SCC pp. 67-68, para 5)
” 5 . … Reading Section 47-A with the aforesaid Rule 340-A it is
clear that the circle rate fixed by the Collector is not final but is only
a prima facie determination of rate of the area concerned only to
give guidance to the registering authority to test prima facie whether
the instrument has properly described the value of the property. The
circle rate under this rule is neither final for the authority nor to the
one subjected to pay the stamp duty. So far sub-sections (1) and (2)
are concerned they are very limited in their application as they only
direct the registering authority to refer to the Collector for
determination in case the property is undervalued in such instrument.
The circle rate does not take away the right of such person to show
that the property in question is correctly valued as he gets an
opportunity in case of undervaluation to prove it before the Collector
after reference is made.”
40. In R. Sai Bharathi v. J. Jayalalitha while examining the issue in the
context of a case relating to disproportionate assets this Court held: (SCC
pp. 40-41, paras 22 & 24)
” 22. … The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the
Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the
property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp
duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima
facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority
as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market
value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline
valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. …
* * *
24. This scheme of the enactment and the Rules contemplate that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
16 FA-462-2022
guideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain the
true or correct market value, undue emphasis on the guideline value
without reference to the setting in which it is to be viewed will
obscure the issue for consideration. It is clear, therefore, that
guideline value is not sacrosanct as urged on behalf of the
appellants, but only a factor to be taken note of, if at all available in
respect of an area in which the property transferred lies.”
41. It should however be noted that as contrasted from the assessment of
market value contained in non-statutory basic valuation registers, the
position may be different, where the guideline market values are
determined by Expert Committees constituted under the State stamp law,
by following the detailed procedure laid down under the relevant Rules,
and are published in the State Gazette. Such State Stamp Acts and the
Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and methodical assessment of
market value in different areas by Expert Committees.
42. These statutes provide that such Expert Committees will be constituted
with officers from the Department of Revenue, Public Works, Survey &
Settlement, Local Authority and an expert in the field of valuation of
properties, with the Sub-Registrar of the sub-registration district as the
Member-Secretary. They also provide for different methods of valuation
for lands, plots, houses and other buildings. They require determination of
the market value of agricultural lands by classifying them with reference to
soil, rate of revenue assessment, value of lands in the vicinity and locality,
nature of crop yield for a specified number of years, and situation (with
reference to roads, markets, etc.).
43. The rates assessed by the Committee are required to be published
inviting objections/suggestions from the members of the public. After
considering such objections/suggestions, the final rates are published in the
gazette. Such published rates are revised and updated periodically. When
the guideline market values, that is, minimum rates for registration of
properties, are so evaluated and determined by the Expert Committees as
per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a
relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value.
44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is
with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by
such statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can
therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land
acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open
to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow
from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the
guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are
assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with
the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or
areawise, or villagewise) and finalised after inviting objections and
published in the gazette. Be that as it may.
45. We have referred to this aspect only to show that there are different
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15624
17 FA-462-2022
categories of basic valuation registers in different States and what is stated
with reference to the stamp law in Andhra Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, may
not apply with reference to other States where State stamp laws have
prescribed the procedure for determination of market value, referred to
above.”
9. It is not the case of the Appellant that the Collector’s guidelines
were not issued in accordance with law. Thus in absence of challenge to the
correctness of the Collector’s guidelines by the State, this Court is of the
considered opinion, that the Collector’s guidelines issued by the State
Authority has been rightly relied upon by the Reference Court.
10. No other argument is advanced by the Counsel for the Appellant.
11. Ex consequenti, Award dated 28-10-2021 passed by XIth District
Judge, Gwalior in MJC (Land Acquisition) No.203/2018 is hereby affirmed
and the appeal filed by appellants/State is hereby dismissed in the light of
terms and conditions of the judgment passed in the case of Lokendra Singh
(supra) as well as the observation made in respect of application of Collector
guidelines.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 31-07-2025
14:42:44