State of M.P. vs Water Resource Department

K.K. Lahoti, J.

I.A. No. 5637/11 u/section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this appeal:

For the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit, the delay of 165 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

Heard on admission.

This appeal is directed against an award (judgment) dt.16.8.2010 passed by First Addl. District Judge, Raisen in Reference Case No. 15/ 2008 by which the Addl. District Judge enhanced the compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Reference court erred in enhancing the amount of compensation placing reliance on the guidelines issued by the Collector in respect of the land which was acquired for construction of the Tank in question.

From perusal of the award, we find that the Reference court has considered various sale-deeds of the area and on the basis of the aforesaid assessed the price. Apart from that, the guidelines issued by the Collector for the relevant period were also taken into consideration for. assessment of the price of the land. The acquired land was having tube-well, standing trees etc. The Reference Court assessed the price of the land @ Rs. 1.40 lakh per acre and Rs.70,000/-for the trees. In respect of tube-well compensation was assessed @ Rs.30,000/-. On the aforesaid amount solacium and interest u/section 23 of the Act was also awarded. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that not only the guidelines but, also various sale-deeds were taken into consideration by the reference Court which are referred in para 15 to 21 of the judgment. The Reference Court assessed the price passed on various sale-deeds of the area and also the guidelines issued by the Collector fixing the price of lands for the purposes of charging stamp duty on sale of the land. When the State can charge stamp duty on the basis of guidelines issued by the Collector concern then how State can say that for the purpose of awarding compensation such guidelines should not be taken into consideration. The guidelines are issued by the Collector under the provisions of the M.P. Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules 2000 after following the process envisaged in the Rules. For ascertaining price of the land, for the purposes of awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act the guidelines can be a basis for ascertaining the market value of land, at the relevant time. When the State can charge stamp duty on the basis of such guidelines than for assessing market value of the land the Courts can very well take into consideration the guidelines for assessing the market value of the land at the relevant time, and the State cannot object on such assessment merely on the ground that to ascertain market value such guidelines were taken into consideration. State cannot adopt two yardstick in the matter. The assessment of Reference Court for enhancing compensation on the basis of guidelines is fully justified.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error in the impugned award. This appeal is found without merit and dismissed at the admission stage with no order as to costs.