BENCH AT INDORE v. Executive Engineer, Jal San Sadhan Sambhag

Prem S/o Shriram Choudhary R/o Village- Gayakwad Mhowgoan Teh:-Mhow, District Indore (MP) ...Appellant 2 Vs.

1. State of M.P. Through Bhu-Arjan Adhikari, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.)

2. Karyapalan Yantri, Jal San Sadhan, Indore (M.P.) ...Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 275 of 2004

1. Thawar S/o Pannalal Gujar

2. Hari Singh S/o Pannalal Gujar, R/o Village-Pithampur Teh.-Dhar (M.P.) ...Appellants Vs.

1. State of M.P. Through Bhu-Arjan Adhikari, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.)

2. Karyapalan Yantri, Jal San Sadhan, Indore (M.P.) ...Respondents FIRST APPEAL NO. 276 of 2004

1. Uday Singh 2. Dule Singh 3. Nirbhay Singh S/o Pannalal Gujar, R/o Village-Pithampur Teh.-Dhar, District-Dhar (M.P.) ...Appellants 3 Vs.

1. State of M.P. through Land Acquisition Officer, Mhow, District-Indore (M.P.).

2. Executive Engineer, Jal Sansadhan Vibhag, Indore (M.P.). ...Respondents of 2004 FIRST APPEAL NO. 348 Gopal S/o Kaluji Aged-85 years, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o Gram-Bhatkhedi, Teh:-Mhow, District Indore (MP) ...Appellant Vs.

1. Executive Engineer, Jal San Sadhan Vibhag, Indore, Office Khajrana Road, Old Palasia, Indore (MP)

2. M.P. State Through Land Acquisition Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Mhow, District Indore (M.P.)

3. Shivcharan S/o Kalu (deceased) through heirs:- a) Smt. Dayabai W/o late Shivcharan Age-61 years, Occupation-House work b) Mohanlal S/o Shivcharan Age-36 years, Occupation-Agriculture 4 c) Suresh S/o Shivcharan Age-36years, Occupation-Agriculture d) Gordhan S/o Babulal Age-30 years, Occupation-Labour All R/o Village-Bhatkhedi Teh.-Mhow, District-Indore (M.P.) ...Respondents J U D G M E N T (Passed on 21 February 2012) Per Seth J: This judgment shall also govern disposal of connected First Appeal Nos. 273/2004; 275/2004; 276/2004 and 348/2004, as they involve common question of fact and law and are directed against the common Award dated 11.9.2003 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Mhow in Reference Case No. 2 of 2003.

2. The principal question that arises for the decision is as to the market value of appellant's land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in connection with the construction of reservoir (rkykc) for irrigation 5 purposes in village Bhatkhedi, Tehsil Mhow of District Indore.

3. On 30.7.1999 a notification u/s 4 r/w section 17 of the Act was published in the gazette. It was followed by the Notification u/s 6 which was published in the gazette on

8.10.1999 in all 14 survey numbers admeasuring 14.231 hectare of agriculture land of village Bhatkhedi were acquired for construction of reservoir. Appellant claimed compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- per Bigha. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award u/s 11 and awarded compensation for the irrigated land @ Rs. 2,78,873 per hectare and Rs. 1,85,915 per hectare for un-irrigated land, besides 30% solatium and interest. The appellants did not agree to the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer and at their instant, the question of compensation was referred to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge Mhow who tried the reference considering the evidence found that proper compensation was determined and paid 6 to appellants therefore, references were dismissed by the impugned Award. Against that decision, the appellants have brought these appeals.

4. As mentioned earlier, the only question arising for decision is as regards the market value of the acquired land for determining true compensation that is payable to appellants.

5. Admittedly acquired for construction of reservoir. Before the Reference Court, Appellants claimed compensation @ 40 per square feet stating that acquired lands were in close proximity of residential colonies in Nagar Panchayat Mhow and Pithampur Industrial Estate in Dhar District. Besides their self serving depositions, they also produced sales deeds Ex.P.1 to P-5 as documentary evidence in support of their claim that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 4 lacs per Bigha for irrigated land and Rs. 3 lacs per Bigha for un-irrigated land. 7

6. Respondent denied the claim of appellants. They examined SDO Rajesh Patwa and Amrsingh Patwari of Bhatkhedi village. They also produced in evidence relevant extract of the Map of Survey of India as Ex.D-1 and Ex. D-2 showing the preceding five years’ average market rate of agriculture land situated in village Bhatkhedi.

7. Learned Reference Court on due consideration of evidence found unsafe to rely upon the sale deeds Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 for the purposes of fixing the market value of the land acquired. We do not find it amiss. In assessing the value to be attached to the oral evidence, as a Judge of fact, it was open for the Reference Court to test the evidence on the basis of probabilities. Material on record shows that villagers were aware of the proposal to acquire private land for construction of reservoir and the survey carried out to identify lands for the said purpose. In such situation, it is a matter of common knowledge that prices are artificially jacked-up to 8 get higher amount of compensation. In case in hand, except Ex.D-2, there is no definite and clinching documentary evidence which could prove and establish or act a guide in determining the market value of the acquired land. Ex.D-1 also shows that land acquired were situated at quite a distance towards the interior and away from the location of the land covered by the sale deeds Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. Thus considering over all facts and circumstances of the case in the light of material available on record, we do not find any infirmity with the judgment of the Reference Court which is under challenge before us in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of any substance and merit, is therefore hereby dismissed but with no orders as to costs.

8. Let a copy of the judgment be kept in record of the connected appeals. (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.) (S.K.SETH, J.)