AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.