LexKAMRUL ISLAM ALVI versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 689 KAMRUL ISLAM ALVI v. STATE OF M.P. (Civil Appeal No. 7312 of 2009) NOVEMBER 4, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 25 (Before Amendment Act of 1984) - Land acquired - Award of compensation - In Reference, land-holder in addition to enhancement of C compensation for acquired land, claiming compensation of Rs. 25, 0001- for Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate - Making separate claim of about R~. 6. 5 lakhs, for the Reservoir and Sluice Gate before Land Acquisition Officer - Reference Court remitting the case to ascertain the compensation - Land D Acquisition Officer determines the compensation at about Rs. 24, 0001- - Reference for enhancement again remitted - Land Acquisition Officer upholding his earlier order - Reference Court granting award of about Rs. 5 lakhs - High Court setting aside the award holding that prior to 1984 amendment, only E the amount claimed, to be paid - On appeal, held: High Court failed to see that claimed amount was Rs. 6.5 lakhs -Award by Reference Court was justified. Appellant's land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Dissatisfied with the award of F compensation, he filed application before Reference Court, claiming Rs. 25,0001- on account of Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate, in addition to the ' compensation amount for the acquired land. He also filed an application before Land Acquisition Officer claiming G compensation of Rs. 6,46,579.951- for the Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate. Reference Court observing that it cannot exercise original jurisdiction, remitted the matter 689 H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. I A to Land Acquisition Officer for fixation of the compensation. Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. ~ 43,463. 75. Dissatisfied, appellant filed application for reference claiming a sum of Rs. 6,46,579.95. Reference Court remanded the matter to Land Acquisition Officer for B assessment afresh. Land Acquisition Officer, again granted Rs. 43,463/- as compensation. Appellant, once again filed application for Reference. Reference court awarded a sum of Rs. 5,45,738/- as compensation for the Reservoir and Sluice Gate. Respondent-State approached -J c High Court, whereby the order of reference court was set aside. Hence, the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The reasoning of the High Court that u/s. D 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which existed prior to 24.9.1984, only those amounts would be payable to the appellant which have been claimed specifically, does not ·ci appear to be borne out from the record. From the facts it is crystal clear that a sum of Rs.6,46,5V9.95 was claimed E for Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate. Counsel for the State had probably due to bonafide mistake not brought to the notice of the court, appellant's application/statement of claim claiming specifically a sum of Rs. 6,46,579/- as compensation for Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate. F [Paras 15, 16 and 20] [694-E-G; 695-F-G] J,.. 2. Once the order of reference court came to be passed, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the amount claimed for Water- Reservoir and Sluice Gate be assessed at Rs. 6,46,579.95, and matter stood remitted to G the Land Acquisition Officer, the parties went to trial with the clear understanding that what has been claimed by the appellant for the Water Reservoir and Sluice Gate was,fr l' • l .-• ,. not at the rate of Rs.25,000/- only. Against that order no r appeal was preferred by the State and the said order had ·H KAMRUL ISLAM ALVI v. STATE OF M.P. 691 attained finality. [Paras 18 and 19] [695-C-E] .~ CIVIL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7312 of 2009. A From the Judgment & Order dated 02.04.2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 392 B of 1995. Pragati Neekhra, Suryanaryana Singh, for the Appellant. Naveen Sharma, 8.S. Banthia, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Leave granted. c 2. Appellant's land _admeasuring 3.10 acres situated at village Pehantala, Tehsil & District Hoshangabad falling in D $Urvey No. 15, was acquired for construction of Bagda Branch :: Canal. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 9.11.1973. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 21.2.1975 determining t!l~ _a_mo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.