LexM/S. AHAD BROTHERS versus STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
T ·~ MIS. AHAD BROTHERS v. STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. NOVEMBER 19, 2004 [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act. 1894: Section 18-Acquired /and-Question of title-Jurisdiction of Reference Court to determine-Land Acquisition Officer considered the person whose land was acquired as the owner of the acquired land and passed an award A B c of compensation-Reference Court concluded that the State failed to establish that the owner was a lessee/licensee-However, High Court reversed the finding of the Reference Court without dislodging the reasons recorded by it in support of its conclusion and held that the owner was D entitled only to the extent of leasehold interest in the acquired land- Correctness of -Held: Question of title could not be decided under S. 18- High Court erred in reversing the finding of the Reference Court-Hence, High Court's judgment cannot be sustained Section 3(b)-"Person interested"-Held: State is not a "person E interested" in agitating any claim under S. 18 or S. 30. Sectior.s 4 & 6-Land owned by State-Acquisition of-Held: There is no question of State acquiring its own land: F Section 23-Compensation-Developmental charges-Deduction of- Reference Court awarded compensation at a certain rate after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence but did not deduct developmental charges-However, High Court without considering the material on record and the reasons recorded by the Reference Court reduced the rate-Correctness of-Held: High Court erred in interfering with the G Reference Court's determination-Reference Court also erred in not deducting the developmental charges-Considering the location and surroundings of the acquired land it would b? just and appropriate to deduct 30% towards developmental charges out of the compensation payable to the owner. H 191 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A Code of Civil Procedure. l 908: Order 8 Rule 9-Written statement-Amendment of-Not cha/Jenged- Effect of-Defendant filed an application to amend its written statement that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land but only a licensee/lessee- B High Court allowed the application-Plaintiff did not challenge this order- Held: Merely because permission was granted to amend the written statement did not mean that the plaintiff could not resist the claim of the defendant as regards its right as the owner of the acquired land. c Words & Phrases: "Person interested"-Meaning of-Jn the context ofS. 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer, pursuant to the notification issued D under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, acquired the appellant's land considering him as the owner of the said land and after fixing the market value of the land acquired, awarded a certain amount as compensation. Not being satisfied with the amount of compensation_, the appellant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Tli¢ Reference Court rejected the said reference. Aggrieved by the order of E the Reference Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Reference Court and remanded the matter to it to decide th~ reference afresh. F The Reference Court enhanced the compensation. The respondent- State filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the said enhancement. During the pendency of the appeal, the State Government made an application for amendment in the written statement to the effect that the appellant was not the owner of the land and was a licensee or a lessee. The State Government also made an application seeking G permission to file additional evidence. The High Court, after allowing the applications set aside the Award made by the Reference Court and remitted the matter again to it for determining the rights of the appellant in the land and to determine the market value of those rights on the date of the notification. On the basis of the material available on record the H Reference Court held that the appellant was having ownership rights AHAD BROTHERS v. STA TE 193 in the acquired land and further enhanced the compensation. The State Government for the second time filed an appeal in the High Court questioning the validity and corre.::tness of the order made by the Reference Court. The appellant also filed cross objections claiming enhancement of the compensation for the land acquir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.