The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Kalabai & Others

The petitioners have filed the present petition

praying for a direction to respondent No. 2 to pay the

compensation in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 35 at

the rate fixed for irrigated land.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners

admeasuring to 0.029 hectare and Khasra No. 35 having an

area of 1 hectare, situated in Village Belwa Pawai, Tehsil

Sirmour, District Rewa. The land of the petitioners were

acquired for constructing Quonti Canal under the Bansagar

Project, Rewa. The award was passed in respect of the said

land by the Land Acquisition Officer for the un-irrigated

land and the rate was fixed as Rs. 2,43,000/- per hectare

and for irrigated land it was fixed as Rs. 3,64,833/- per

hectare. As the petitioners land was irrigated land,

therefore, they are entitled to received the compensation at

the rate of Rs. 3,64,833/- per hectare. However, while

passing the award, the Land acquisition Officer determined

at the rate of Rs. 2,43,000/- per hectare which was fixed for

un-irrigated land. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the

objections before the Land Acquisition Officer, on the

ground that the compensation was not correctly determined

and they are entitled to receive the compensation at the rate

fixed for irrigated land. As the compensation amount was

not enhanced, the petitioners requested the Land

Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court of

learned District Judge under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act. The matter was then referred by

respondent No. 1 to the Court of learned District Judge.

The learned District Judge passed the judgment dated

02.05.2013, by which it was held that the Khasra No. 32

was irrigated land and, therefore, the petitioners are

entitled to get the compensation at the rate fixed for the

irrigated land. Accordingly, the learned District Judge

directed for payment of difference of award amount. So far

as, Khasra No. 35 is concerned, no relief was granted by

the learned District Judge on the ground that Khasra No.

35 was treated as irrigated land by the Land Acquisition

Officer. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application

under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code before the

learned District Judge seeking amendment in the order

dated 02.05.2013. However, learned District Judge vide

order dated 17.10.2013 has rejected the said application.

Being aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed the

present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that

the Land Acquisition Officer has held that Khasra No. 35 is

the irrigated land, then the Land Acquisition officer should

have determined the compensation as irrigated land

regarding Khasra No. 35. It is not disputed that the Khasra

No. 35 was irrigated land and, therefore, respondent No. 2

is legally bound to determine the award on the said basis

and the difference of amount of compensation should have

paid to the petitioners.

The respondents have filed their reply and in

the reply they have raised a preliminary objection

regarding maintainability of the said writ petition. It has

been stated that as per the petitioners they had approached

the trial Court for enhancement of compensation and the

trial Court directed for enhancement of compensation only

in respect of Khasra No. 32. Whereas, reliefs claimed by

the petitioners before the trial Court for enhancement of

compensation in respect of Khasra No. 35 is concerned, the

same has not been granted to the petitioners. It has further

been submitted that the petitioners have rightly approached

the trial Court for seeking enhancement of compensation

but since the learned trial Court has declined to grant

partial relief to the petitioners in respect of Khasra No. 35

which was also prayed by the petitioners. Therefore, in

view of the explanation V appended to Section 11 of the

CPC, any relief claimed in the plaint which is not expressly

granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this Section

be deemed to have been refused. Thus, learned trial Court

has declined to grant the relief as claimed by the petitioners

for enhancement of the compensation in respect of Khasra

No. 35. Learned trial Court has declined to grant

compensation in respect of Khasra No. 35, therefore, the

remedy to the petitioners is to file First Appeal under

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. From perusal of the record, it reveals

that the petitioners were the owner of land bearing Khasra

No. 35 and 32, situated at Village Belwa Pawai, Tehsil

Sirmour, District Rewa. The land belongs to the petitioners

were acquired for constructing Quonti Canal under the

Bansagar Project Rewa. The award was passed in respect

of above lands by the Land Acquisition Officer for the un-

irrigated and the rate was fixed for Rs. 2,43,000/- per

hectare and for irrigated land it was fixed for Rs.

3,64,833/- per hectare. Admittedly, the lands of the

petitioners were irrigated land, therefore, the petitioners

were entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.

3,64,833/- per hectare. However, while passing the award

by the Land Acquisition Officer determined the

compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,43,000/- per hectare

which was fixed for un-irrigated land. Accordingly, the

petitioners have submitted their objections before the Land

Acquisition Officers. The Land Acquisition Officer then

referred the matter to the learned District Judge under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned

District Judge vide order dated 02.05.2013 has held that

Khasra No. 32 was the irrigated land and, therefore, the

petitioners were entitled for compensation at the rate fixed

for the irrigated land. So far as, Khasra No. 35 is

concerned, no findings have been given by the District

Judge. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application under

Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking

amendment in the order dated 02.05.2013. However, the

said application was rejected by the learned District Judge

on the ground that the Khasra No. 35 has already been

treated as irrigated land by the Land Acquisition Officer.

Thus, as per the order dated 17.10.2013, as the land

bearing Khasra No. 35 is also an irrigated land, therefore,

the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation in

respect of Khasra No. 35 as an irrigated land. So far as, the

objections of the respondents regarding the maintainability

of the writ petition is concerned, in the present case, the

petitioners have not sought any relief for enhancement of

the compensation. He only prayed for direction to the

respondents to pay him the compensation as per the

irrigated land in respect of Khasra No. 35 has held by the

Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, in light of the aforesaid,

the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation as per

the irrigated land in respect of Khasra No. 35.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and

respondent No. 2 is directed to determine the award in

respect of Khasra No. 35 at the rate fixed for irrigated land

and the compensation be paid to the petitioners along with

solatium and interest with a period of three months from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.