GAURIBAI & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

2

8 192/2009 Bhanwarsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 9 193/2009 Jivan Singh vs State of M.P & Anr. 10 194/2009 Ranchhod & Ors vs State of M.P & Anr. 11 195/2009 KaluSingh & Anr vs State of M.P & Anr.

12 196/2009 Gauribai & Anr vs State of M.P & Anr. 13 199/2009 Satyanarayan @ Tolaram vs State of M.P & Anr.

14 200/2009 Munnalal vs State of M.P & Anr.

15 203/2009 Balvirsingh Thru. Sakubai & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr.

16 204/2009 Bhavsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 17 205/2009 Ganpatsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 18 206/2009 Babu vs State of M.P & Anr. 19 208/2009 Ranchhod & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 20 211/2009 Kanhaiyalal vs State of M.P & Anr. 21 212/2009 Hirabai vs State of M.P & Anr. 22 221/2009 Sewaram vs State of M.P & Anr. 23 222/2009 Bhavsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 24 223/2009 Bhanwarsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 25 225/2009 Rameshwar & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr. 26 228/2009 Vikramsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 27 232/2009 Bherusingh & Ors.vs State of M.P & Anr. 28 239/2009 Nandu vs State of M.P & Anr. 29 240/2009 NandaramThru.Lrs. Bhanwarsingh & Others. vs State of M.P & Anr.

30 241/2009 Dhanibai vs State of M.P & Anr. 31 244/2009 Laxmibai & Ors vs State of M.P & Anr. 32 247/2009 Sunderbai Thru. Lrs. Sampatbai vs State of M.P & Anr.

33 248/2009 Sardar & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 34 249/2009 Satyanarayan @ Tolaram

vs State of M.P & Anr.

35 251/2009 Shaitanbai vs State of M.P & Anr. 36 252/2009 Sajanbai vs State of M.P & Anr. 37 253/2009 Satish Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 38 254/2009 Ranchhod & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 39 255/2009 Harisingh vs State of M.P & Anr.

3

40 256/2009 Hindusingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 41 257/2009 Sukmabai & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 42 259/2009 Bhagwatsingh & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 43 270/2009 Mohan @ Puna & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr.

44 271/2009 Rameshwar & Ors vs State of M.P & Anr.

45 272/2009 Ratan vs State of M.P & Anr 46 273/2009 Ramsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 47 278/2009 Rameshwar & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 48 284/2009 Bharat Thru. Lrs. Dilip & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr.

49 285/2009 Seeta Devi vs State of M.P & Anr. 50 286/2009 Sadashiv & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr. 51 287/2009 Kamalsingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 52 288/2009 Goverdhansingh vs State of M.P & Anr. 53 289/2009 Bahadursingh & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr.

54 290/2009 Rajaram & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr. 55 291/2009 Laxman vs State of M.P & Anr. 56 292/2009 Ramsingh & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 57 293/2009 Shivnarayan vs State of M.P & Anr. 58 294/2009 Shivnarayan vs State of M.P & Anr. 59 295/2009 Barajubai & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr. 60 296/2009 Rama vs State of M.P & Anr. 61 297/2009 Madu vs State of M.P & Anr. 62 298/2009 Dharamraj & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr. 63 299/2009 Nagga vs State of M.P & Anr. 64 300/2009 Nandaram & 2 Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 65 301/2009 Heerabai & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 66 302/2009 Ramesh kumar & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr.

67 303/2009 Ranchhod vs State of M.P & Anr. 68 304/2009 Harisingh & Ors. vs State of M.P & Anr. 69 307/2009 Avantibai @ Nanibai vs State of M.P. Thru: Collector

70 308/2009 Antarsingh vs State of M.P. Thru:

Collector

4

71 309/2009 Umraosingh vs State of M.P. 72 310/2009 Anandrao vs. State of M.P. 73 312/2009 Anandibai vs. State of M.P. 74 313/2009 Kanhaiyalal vs. State of M.P. 75 314/2009 Gauribai vs. State of M.P. 76 315/2009 Gangaram vs. State of M.P. 77 316/2009 Jatanbai vs. State of M.P. 78 317/2009 Harisingh vs. State of M.P. 79 318/2009 Rameshwar vs. State of M.P. 80 319/2009 Heerabai vs. State of M.P. 81 321/2009 Uttamsingh vs. State of M.P. 82 322/2009 Mohanraghuvanshi vs. State of M.P. 83 323/2009 Shri Kishan vs. State of M.P. 84 324/2009 Gangaram vs. State of M.P. 85 325/2009 Nagga vs. State of M.P. 86 326/2009 Bhagwatsingh vs. State of M.P. 87 327/2009 BhagwatsinghThru.Lrs Umraosingh vs. State of M.P.

88 328/2009 Amritabai vs. State of M.P. 89 329/2009 Shivnarayan vs. State of M.P. 90 330/2009 Devisingh vs. State of M.P. 91 331/2009 Madoo vs. State of M.P. 92 332/2009 Burkhilal & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 93 333/2009 Suresh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 94 334/2009 Mohan vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 95 335/2009 Uttamsingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 96 336/2009 Anandrao & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 97 337/2009 Hanjabai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 98 338/2009 Bhagwantibai vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 99 339/2009 Kanhaiyalal & Anr.vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 100 340/2009 Bheerusingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

101 341/2009 Mulibai vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 102 342/2009 Harisingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 103 343/2009 Laxmibai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 104 344/2009 Harinarayan vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 105 345/2009 Shrikishan vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

5

106 346/2009 Bhagwatsingh Thru. Umraosingh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

107 347/2009 Amrutlal vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 108 348/2009 Madansingh & Ors.vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 109 352/2009 Kailashsingh & Ors.vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

110 353/2009 Umraosingh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 111 355/2009 Kalu & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 112 356/2009 Kanhaiyalal vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 113 357/2009 Rama & Ors vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 114 358/2009 Omprakash & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 115 359/2009 Babusingh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 116 360/2009 Surajbai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 117 361/2009 Bhawarsingh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 118 362/2009 Kesharsingh & Ors.vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

119 363/2009 Nagga vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 120 364/2009 Rameshwar & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

121 366/2009 Kesharsingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

122 367/2009 Jeevan vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

Village-Kheda

Serial No. First Appeal Name of the Parties` 1 434/2009 Rameshwar Thru. Lrs. Bherusingh & Ors

vs State of M.P. &

Ors.

2 435/2009 Seetabai vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

3 436/2009 Shivnarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

4 437/2009 Mangilal vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

5 438/2009 Vikramsingh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

6 440/2009 Mohan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

7 441/2009 Ramnarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

6

8 442/2009 Harisingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

9 443/2009 Sevsingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

10 444/2009 Shakuntalabai & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

11 448/2009 Ratanbai & Ors vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

12 449/2009 Manoharsingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

13 450/2009 Gabbusingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

14 456/2009 Ramsingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

15 458/2009 Ramprasad vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

16 459/2009 Laxminarayan & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

17 462/2009 Gajram & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

18 463/2009 Ratan Thru. Lrs Rajubai & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

19 465/2009 Daulatram vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

20 466/2009 Jayantibai vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

21 468/2009 Rameshchandra vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

22 469/2009 Rambux vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

23 470/2009 Ramnarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

24 471/2009 Kanhaiyalal & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

25 472/2009 Karansingh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

26 473/2009 Heeralal & Ors & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

27 474/2009 Kalu vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

28 475/2009 Ratansingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

7

29 476/2009 Dattu vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

30 479/2009 Kaveribai vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 31 480/2009 Devendra Kumar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

32 481/2009 Gajraj & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 33 482/2009 Motisingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 34 483/2009 Mohan vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 35 484/2009 Nemichand & Anr. vs State of M.P.Ors.

36 485/2009 Ambaram vs State of M.P.Ors. 37 486/2009 Amarsingh & 2 Ors. vs State of M.P.Ors.

38 489/2009 Abhay Singh vs. State of M.P. Ors. 39 490/2009 Ramnarayan vs. State of M.P. Ors. 40 491/2009 Nandkishore vs. State of M.P. Ors. 41 492/2009 Rugnath vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 42 494/2009 Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 43 495/2009 Shantidas vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 44 496/2009 Jaysingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 45 497/2009 Jagdish & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 46 498/2009 Kashya vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 47 499/2009 Umraosingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 48 506/2009 Bherusingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 49 507/2009 Mangilal vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 50 508/2009 Mangilal vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 51 509/2009 Ramnarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 52 510/2009 Vikramsingh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

53 511/2009 Devisingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 54 512/2009 Radheshyam vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 55 513/2009 Prahlad vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 56 516/2009 Brajesh kumar & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

57 517/2009 Yuvraj vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 58 518/2009 Balmukund Thru. Lrs Kaushlyabai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

59 519/2009 Hakimuddin vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 60 520/2009 Satyanarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

8

61 521/2009 Surendra Singh & Anr vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

62 523/2009 Daulatsingh Thru. Umraosingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

63 524/2009 Chhaganlal Thru. Lrs. Deepak & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

64 525/2009 Gabbusingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 65 530/2009 Shyamsingh & Ors vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

66 531/2009 Sohan & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 67 532/2009 Soma vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 68 533/2009 Siddhu vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 69 534/2009 Mangga vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 70 535/2009 Bahadur Thru. Lrs. Laxmibai & Ors vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

71 536/2009 Hudibai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

72 537/2009 Ashok & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 73 538/2009 Nathu & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 74 539/2009 Antar Gir & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

75 540/2009 Kalusingh Thru. Lrs. Jagdish & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

76 541/2009 Mangilal vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 77 542/2009 Kalabai Thru. Lrs. Hemlata & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

78 543/2009 Mohan & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 79 544/2009 Shivnarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 80 545/2009 Sajansingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 81 546/2009 Ramnarayan & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

82 547/2009 Mukund vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 83 548/2009 Jagannath Th & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

84 549/2009 Nihalsingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 85 552/2009 Radheshyam & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

86 553/2009 Madansingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 87 554/2009 Babu Thru. Lrs. Ramsingh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

88 555/2009 Mukund vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

9

89 556/2009 Harisingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 90 557/2009 Uttamsingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 91 558/2009 Vijaysingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 92 566/2009 Motisingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 93 568/2009 Kamalsingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

94 569/2009 Chunnilal Thru. Lrs.Banshi & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

95 570/2009 Vijay Singh Thru. Lrs.Dharmagaj & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

96 571/2009 Ramsingh Thru. Lrs.Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

97 572/2009 Rameshwar Thru. Lrs.Bherusingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

98 573/2009 Kamal Singh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

99 574/2009 Parvatibai vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 100 575/2009 Girdhari & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

101 576/2009 Javarsingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

102 577/2009 Ghisibai vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 103 578/2009 Rambhabai vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 104 579/2009 Nihal Singh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 105 580/2009 Bahadursingh vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 106 581/2009 Ramsingh Thru.Lrs Rajesh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

107 583/2009 Omkar Thru. Lrs. Antarsingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

108 584/2009 Laxmibai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

109 585/2009 Laxmibai vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

110 586/2009 Ramnarayan vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

110 587/2009 Balbir vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

10

111 588/2009 Bherusingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Appeal filed by State

Serial No. First Name of the parties. Appeal

1 898/2009 State of M.P. & Anr vs. Rameshwar 2 899/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Harisingh 3 900/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nagga 4 903/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mukund 5 1035/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohan 6 1036/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Nihalsingh 7 1039/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kaweribai 8 1041/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Gajraj Ranchhod.

9 1043/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jeevan 10 1045/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Bhawarsingh 11 1046/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramchandra 12 1048/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramnarayan 13 1051/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Mohd. Yunus Ansari

15 1052/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramsingh 16 1054/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Radheyshyam 17 1057/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ratansingh 18 1058/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Magga 19 1065/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Brajesh Kumar 20 1069/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Rambhabai 21 1070/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Yuvraj 22 1071/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Laxmibai 23 1080/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kamalsingh & Anr.

24 1081/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Umraosingh 25 1082/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Uttamsingh 26 1083/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Jagdish & Anr. 27 1086/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ambaram 28 1087/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Balmukund 29 1088/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Hakimuddin

11

30 1089/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Satyanarayan 31 1094/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Ramprasad 32 1096/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kanhaiyalal & Ors

33 1097/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Kashya 34 1099/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Laxminarayan 35 1100/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Siddhu 36 1105/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Gabbusingh 37 1106/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Rmabuksh 38 1107/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Surendra & Anr.

39 1108/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Mangilal & Anr. 40 1110/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Soma 41 1111/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Daulatsingh Thru. Lrs. Umraosingh & Ors.

42 1112/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Devendra 43 1113/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Dattoo 44 1114/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Radheyshyam 45 1115/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Rambhabai 46 1116/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Jaysingh 47 1132/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bherusingh & Ors.

48 1133/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bherusingh & Ors.

49 1134/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Dhanibai 50 1135/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bharatsingh Thru. Lrs. Dilip & Ors.

51 1137/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Umrao & Anr. 52 1138/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Omprakash & Anr.

53 1139/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Govardhansingh

54 1175/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bhavsingh 55 1176/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bhavsingh 56 1177/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bhavsingh & Ors.

57 1178/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Harisingh & Ors.

58 1179/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Umraosingh 59 1182/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bhawarsingh

12

60 1183/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ramsingh & Ors.

61 1186/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Bahadur (decd.) Thru L.rs. Laxmibai & Ors 62 1187/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Mangilal 63 1188/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Shivnarayan & Anr.

64 1191/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Vikramsingh & Anr.

65 1192/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Vikramsingh & Anr.

66 1193/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Jayantibai 67 1194/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Motisingh 68 1196/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Nemichand & Anr.

69 1199/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Prakashchandra

70 1200/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ramchandra 71 1198/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Sajansingh 72 1197/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Radheyshyam & Ors.

73 1203/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Prahlad 74 1237/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Ramnarayan 75 1238/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Gangaram 76 1239/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Shantidas 77 1241/2009 State of M.P. & Anr. Vs Kamalsingh 78 02 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Kesharsingh & Ors.

79 03 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Rambhau 80 04 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Bahadur & Anr. 81 05 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Ramesh & Ors. 82 07 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Bherusingh 83 08 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Karansingh & Anr.

84 09 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Babu Thru Lrs. Ramsingh & Anr.

85 10 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Ranchhod & Ors.

86 12 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Nathu & Ors. 87 15 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Parvati Bai

13

88 16 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Kanhaiyalal 89 17 of 2010 State of M.P.(LAO) Vs Kanhaiyalal 90 232/2010 State of M.P. Vs Barjubai & Ors. 91 233/2010 State of M.P. Vs Durgabai & Anr. 92 234/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nandu 93 235/2010 State of M.P. Vs Madu 94 236/2010 State of M.P. Vs Burkhilal 95 237/2010 State of M.P. Vs Bhawarsingh & Ors. 96 241/2010 State of M.P. Vs Avantibai @ Nanibai 97 262/2010 State of M.P. Vs Devisingh 98 263/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mohansingh 99 267/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ramnarayan 100 268/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ratanbai & Ors. 101 269/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ramprasad 102 270/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ramnarayan & Anr. 103 271/2010 State of M.P. Vs Rameshwar (Decd.) Thru. Lrs. Bherusingh & Ors.

104 277/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ganpatsingh 105 278/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ranchhod 106 279/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ranchhod & Ors. 107 280/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sewaram 108 281/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mohan @ Puna and Anr.

109 283/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mohansingh 110 284/2010 State of M.P. Vs Rameshwar & Ors. 111 285/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ratan 112 286/2010 State of M.P. Vs Rama 113 287/2010 State of M.P. Vs Rameshwar & Ors. 114 288/2010 State of M.P. Vs Bhagwatsingh & Ors. 115 317/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mukund 116 319/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sukmabai & Ors 117 329/2010 State of M.P. Vs Heerabai & Ors 118 334/2010 State of M.P. Vs Madansingh 119 335/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mohan 120 336/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kalabai (Decd.) Thru. Lrs Hemlata & Anr.

121 337/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ramsingh 122 338/2010 State of M.P. Vs Hudibai & Ors.

14

123 366/2010 State of M.P. Vs Dharmraj & Anr. 124 368/2010 State of M.P. Vs Uttamsingh & Ors. 125 369/2010 State of M.P. Vs Anandrao & Ors 126 373/2010 State of M.P. Vs Anandibai 127 375/2010 State of M.P. Vs Madansingh & Ors 128 376/2010 State of M.P. Vs Goribai & Anr. 129 411/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sardar & Ors 130 412/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nandram & Ors 140 413/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sadashiv & Anr. 141 414/2010 State of M.P. Vs Babu 142 415/2010 State of M.P. Vs Balveer Singh Thru. Saklubai & Ors.

143 470/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mangilal 144 471/2010 State of M.P. Vs Girdhari & Ors 145 472/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ramsingh (Decd) Thru. Lrs Rajesh & Ors.

146 473/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kalusingh Thru. Lr.1. Jagdish

147 634/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sajanbai 148 635/2010 State of M.P. Vs Satis & Ors 149 636/2010 State of M.P. Vs Gendabai & Anr. 150 637/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nagga

151 638/2010 State of M.P. Vs Hanjabai & Ors 152 639/2010 State of M.P. Vs Bhagwatsingh 153 640/2010 State of M.P. Vs Amratlal 154 642/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mohan

155 672/2010 State of M.P. Vs Shivnarayan 156 674/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sitadevi 157 675/2010 State of M.P. Vs Shivnarayan 158 677/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kalu & Ors 159 680/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sampatbai 160 682/2010 State of M.P. Vs Laxmibai & Ors 161 720/2010 State of M.P. Vs Harisingh 162 721/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kaisharsingh & Ors. 163 723/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kanhaiyalal & Anr. 164 724/2010 State of M.P. Vs (Decd) Bhagwatsingh Thru. Lrs. Umraosingh

165 725/2010 State of M.P. Vs Heerabai & Ors

15

166 726/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mulibai 167 727/2010 State of M.P. Vs Vijaysingh 168 728/2010 State of M.P. Vs Gangaram 169 738/2010 State of M.P. Vs Harinarayan 170 739/2010 State of M.P. Vs Rameshwar & Anr. 171 740/2010 State of M.P. Vs Mukund & Ors 172 741/2010 State of M.P. Vs Madu 173 742/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ranchhod & Ors 174 744/2010 State of M.P. Vs Ratansingh 175 745/2010 State of M.P. Vs Amratabai & Anr. 176 746/2010 State of M.P. Vs Amarsingh 177 747/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kalusingh & Anr. 178 825/2010 State of M.P. Vs Rugnath 179 827/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sitabai 180 830/2010 State of M.P. Vs Decd. Onkar Thru. Lrs. Antarsingh & Anr.

181 831/2010 State of M.P. Vs Shakuntlabai & Anr. 182 832/2010 State of M.P. Vs Sevsingh 183 833/2010 State of M.P. Vs Balveersingh 184 845/2010 State of M.P. Vs Uttansingh & Ors 185 847/2010 State of M.P. Vs Jeevansingh 186 848/2010 State of M.P. Vs Bhanwarsingh 187 850/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nihalsingh 188 851/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nandkishore 189 853/2010 State of M.P. Vs Daulatram 190 886/2010 State of M.P. Vs Gauribai & Anr. 191 887/2010 State of M.P. Vs Gabbusingh 192 888/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nihalsingh 192 890/2010 State of M.P. Vs Jawaharsingh & Ors. 193 891/2010 State of M.P. Vs Heerabai 194 892/2010 State of M.P. Vs Laxmibai & Ors. 193 893/2010 State of M.P. Vs Bhanwarsingh 194 894/2010 State of M.P. Vs Kalu 195 896/2010 State of M.P. Vs Decd. Ratan Thru. Lrs. Rajubai & Anr.

196 897/2010 State of M.P. Vs Nirmalabai 197 898/2010 State of M.P. Vs Manoharsingh 198 899/2010 State of M.P. Vs Heeralal & Ors.

16

199 900/2010 State of M.P. Vs Bherusingh & Ors. 200 386/2011 State of M.P. Vs Vijaysingh

2. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the aforenoted first appeals as they arise out of the same proceedings from different judgments of the judgment passed by District Judge, Dhar, (M.P.), but are result of a common notification issued under Section 4 (1) Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') and thus, are based upon similar facts and documentary and oral evidence of the Land Acquisition for acquiring land for public purpose, namely, by the District Trade & Industry Centre, Pithampur, District Dhar, for establishment of "Special Economic Zone" in District Dhar.

3. For the sake of convenience the facts are borrowed from F.A.No.444/2009 (Shakuntala & Anr. vs. State of M.P & Anr.) filed by the landowners (claimants) of village Kheda Tehsil and District Dhar and F.A.No.831/2010 (Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. Shakuntala & Anr) filed by the State. Section 4 (1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be published in the Official Gazette on 3.1.2003. Total 51.209 hectares land of village Kheda (22.461 hectares irrigated land and 28.643 hectares un-irrigated land) for establishment of Special Economic Zone has been acquired. The land acquisition officer (in short 'LAO') by award dated 27.7.2005 assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.4,041,33/- per hectare, in respect of unirrigated land and Rs.6,06,200/- per hectare in respect of

17

irrigated land. He also awarded solatium with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, the claimants - landowners being dissatisfied with the order/award of the LAO, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, which in terms came to refer to the Court of competent jurisdiction, ie., the reference Court. The claimants filed their claim statements and stated that the acquired land of village Kheda and Bardari is surrounded by Pithampur Industrial Development area and also surrounded by the "Special Economic Zone", which was developed in Pithampur Industrial Development area and around thousands of factory and Industrial Units are running therein. The land is having high potential value. The land is near by to Mhow- Neemuch National Highway and prayed that the compensation be awarded at the rate of Rs.125 per sq ft or at the rate of Rs.1 crore 30 lacs per hectares.

4. The Government of Madhya Pradesh and General Manager District Trade and Industrial Center, Pithampur, filed their reply to claim statement and opposed the averment made therein. According to them, the LAO assessed the value rightly and passed the award on 27.7.2005. They opposed the reference application and prayed for dismissal.

5. The land owners along with the claim statement have filed six sale deeds vide Annexures P/2 to P/7.

6. Exhibit P/2 is sale deed dated 24.1.1995 in respect of

18

0.230 hectares and the same was executed for a consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. Exhibit P/3 is sale deed dated 25.1.1995 in respect of 0.209 hectares and the same was executed for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/-. Exhibit P/4 is sale deed dated 21.2.1995 in respect of 0.209 hectares and the same was executed for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Exhibit P/5 is sale deed dated 10.3.1997 in respect of 0.027 hectares and the same was executed for a consideration of Rs1,47,000/-. Exhibit P/6 is sale deed dated 17.12.1999 in respect of 0.042 hectares and the same was executed for a consideration of Rs.55,000/- and Exhibit P/7 is sale deed dated 29.12.2000 in respect of

0.009 hectares and the same was executed for a consideration of Rs.81,0000/-.

7. Statement of Kanaklata, landowner (appellant No.2 in F.A.No.444/2009) was recorded before the reference court. As per her statement the land is surrounded by number of industries and nearby to the land acquired for Special Economic Zone, piece of residential colonies have been developed and plenty of water and electricity is available. She prayed that compensation of the acquired land be paid as per sale deed Exhibit P/7. She was cross-examined by the Government Advocate, but she in her cross-examination supported her claim.

8. The State Government failed to examine any one nor they filed any document before the reference Court nor recorded the

19

statement of any witness like revenue officer and sub-registrar.

9. It is well settled that where there are several comparable sale deed then the highest value should be preferred unless there are other strong circumstances, which may justify different courses. The reference court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence so also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of LAO Kammarapully village (A.P.) V/s. Nookala Rajamallu & Ors. reported as AIR 2004 SC 1031,

Atma Singh (died) thr. L.Rs & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 and Kasturi & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 SC 202 held that the exampliers filed by the landowners were of small piece of land could not be a ground to discard them specially when exampliers of large piece of land were not available. They could therefore, be used as a safeguard for determining the market value of the land. The reference court on the basis of sale-deed Exhibit P/6 has held that in the year 1999 the market value of the land was Rs.13,09,524/-. He relying on the decision of

Numaligarh Refinery Ltd V/s. Green View Tea & Industries & Anr. reported as AIR 2007 SC 1733 reduced the value by about 30% on account of smallness of the plots, assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.9,16,667/- per hectare, ie., Rs.9,17,000/- per hectare and enhanced the price at the rate of 10% per year since the sale deed related to the period approximately 3 1/2

20

(three and half) years earlier and fixed the market value of unirrigated land at the rate of Rs.12,20,000/- per hectare and allowed the deduction of 35% (12,20,000-4,27,000 = Rs.7,93,000/-). The reference court assessed the market value of the irrigated land at the rate of Rs.11,89,500/- ie., one and half time more of the market value of unirrigated land.

10. First Appeal No.444/2009 (Shakuntala Bai & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr.) and F.A.No.831/2010 (Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. Shakuntala & Anr) as well as other connected appeal are in respect of village Kheda, District Dhar. Both the parties are aggrieved by the order passed by the reference court and challenged the same order.

11. First Appeal No.225/2009 (Rameshwar & Anr. vs State of M.P & Anr.) and F.A.No.898/2009 (State of M.P. & Arn. v/s. Rameshwar.) as well as other connected appeal are in respect of village Bardari, District Dhar.

12. The appellants State have filed the appeal on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court is on the higher side. The land owners have also challenged the award on the ground that amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court is inadequate.

13. It has been submitted by learned Govt., Advocate that there is no evidence that land of both the villages are surrounded by industrial area or adjoining to SEZ. She also drew

21

our attention to the statement of Kanaklata and submitted that documents filed by the State before the land acquisition officer has not been properly appreciated. During the course of arguments, she very fairly admitted that no one on behalf of the appellant State was examined before the reference Court. The land of village Bardari and Kheda were acquired for "Special Economic Zone".

14. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate for the land owners has submitted that question involved in these appeals in respect of acquisition of land at village Kheda has been considered by the learned Single Judge in F.A.No.707/2011 decided on 13.12.2011. The learned single Judge after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties allowed the appeals of the land owners in part and held that the land owners are entitled to claim compensation at the rate fixed by the reference Court, with a deduction of 20% instead of 65% plus increased of 15% per year between the date of sale deed and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on account of the appreciation of market value. He submitted that order of the appellate Court merges with the order made in reference, and, thereafter, the appellate order cannot be challenged or attacked by another set of proceedings in the High Court under Section 54 of the Act. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on the

22

decision in the case of Shankar Ramchandra Abhayankar V/s. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1 and

KUNHAYAMMED & ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ANR., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 , wherein the Apex Court considering the principal of doctrine of merger has held that when a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before the superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way, it is the decree or order of the superior Court, tribunal or authority, which is the final binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the Court, tribunal, or authority below.

15. Relying on the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the order passed by the reference Court in respect of village Kheda has been upheld by the High Court in F.A.No.707/2011 and in other connected appeals by the learned Single Judge and the order of reference Court merges in the decision by the High Court and it is the later by the High Court which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. The doctrine of merger therefore, be applied in the present bunch of appeals in respect of village - Kheda and

23

prayed for dismissal of the aforesaid bunch of appeals of village - Kheda on that ground.

16. On merit, it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the land owners that the land of village - Kheda were acquired for

"Special Economic Zone", the whole acquired land will be useful for that purpose. There is no material or evidence on record that they will divide the said land on small pieces and, therefore, 20% to 65% of the land will be vested on that. He further submitted that no map of the AKVN who wanted to develop the land for "Special Economic Zone" has been filed nor statements of any of the officer of AKVN on from industrial development agency nor any revenue officer were recorded to prove that whole land will not be used for "Special Economic Zone". He submitted that land owners also proved that land acquired by the appellants is of high potential value. The said land is very near to Indore and Mhow and are surrounded by fully developed industrial area of Dhar District. The value of the land is much more than the compensation awarded by the reference Court and the High Court in other bunch of first appeals. He also submitted that exemplar, which has been filed and on the basis of which compensation has been assessed was of agriculture land and not a developed land. No guidelines nor any one was examined before the reference Court nor there is any iota of evidence that land is of poor quality.

24

17. In the case of Trishala Jain & Anr. V/s. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., 2011 (6) SCC 47 , the Apex Court has held that deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water, etc when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relates to similar piece of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land. In addition thereto, deduction can also be applied on account of wastage of land.

18. The Apex Court in the Land Acquisition Officer V/s. Nookala Rajamallu & Ors., 2003 (12) SCC 334 had observed that it is advisable to apply some deduction on account of exemplars of plots of smaller size relied upon by way of evidence by the parties. This is the normal rule stated by the Court but it is not free of exceptions. Similarly, it is neither possible nor appropriate to stricto sensu define a class of cases where the Court would not apply any deduction. This again would be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of "no deduction". Furthermore, where the evidence led by the

25

parties is of such instances where the compensation paid is comparable, ie., exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of "no deduction"

may be applied.

19. In the case of Charandass V/s. H.P. Housing & Urban Development, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 398 the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with the question that whether the deduction of 40% from the market value determined by the High Court towards development charges was justified or not. The Apex Court held that where the acquired land falls in the midst of an already developed land with amenities of road, electricity, etc deduction on this account may not be warranted. In the said case, the Apex Court permitted the deduction of 30% as development charges from the market value of the land.

20. In the case of Subh Ram V/s. State of Haryana

reported as (2010) 1 SCC 444, the Apex Court has held that the deduction of "development cost" would depend on various factors. The purpose for which the land acquired is one of the relevant factor. The percentage of deduction may, however, vary between 20% to 70% depending on several circumstances. In the case of Subh Ram V/s. State of Haryana, (Supra) the Apex Court held that it is mandatory to deduct a proper percentage towards development cost.

26

21. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction.

22. In the case of Mohammad Raofuddin V/s. Land Acquisition Officer, 2009 (14) SCC 367, the Apex Court held that Court is duty bound to ensure that the compensation determined is just and fair not only to the individual whose property is acquired but also to the public which has to pay for it. Comparable sale instances of similar land in the neighborhood at the time of acquisition under the Act is best guide to arrive at fair estimate of compensation. However, lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature of potentiality.

23. In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti V/s. Vipin Kumar, reported as AIR 2004 SC 2895, the Apex Court has held that the value fixed in basic valuation register for stamp duty purpose could not be the basis. The sale-deed of comparable land should be main basis.

24. She further submitted that where the same instances (exemplars) relates to similar piece of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large track of land, the same instances even of similar plots should be considered for

27

determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure. She submitted that in the of Trishala Jain & Anr.(Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case has taken the view that deduction on account of expenses of the development of sites could vary from 10% to 86.33% depending on the nature of the land, its situation, the purpose and stage of development. She submitted that the said sale-deed was of very small piece of land, ie., only for a 0.042 hectare (Exhibit P/6) and was executed on inflated rates. The reference Court committed an error in relying on the same. She also submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time, in its different judgments, the deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. She contended that if the market value of the large property is to be fixed on the basis of a sale transaction for a similar property, deduction is to be made taking into consideration the expenses required for development of

"Special Economic Zone". She also submitted that market value was fixed by LAO on the basis of Collector guidelines. The learned reference Court committed an error in fixing the

28

compensation. She also submitted that exemplars filed by the land owners was of a smaller piece of land and, therefore, not safe guidelines to determine the market value of the land.

25. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants - landowners has submitted that in the matter of Sitabai & Anr. v/s. State of M.P. & Anr. reported as 2009 (2) MPHT 442, the learned Single Judge relying on the decision of the Apex Court has held that the sale deed of highest value has to be considered to determine the value of the land acquired. In the present case, the sale deed of highest value is Exhibit P/7 whereas the learned reference Court considered the sale deed of average value Exhibit P/6 and determined the market value and the land, which is contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court. He further submits that in F.A.No.23/2012 by which 133 first appeals of the State were decided and in the aforesaid matters the Division Bench has determined the market of un-irrigated land of village Kheda at the rate of Rs.22,96,875/- and has awarded compensation for un-irrigated land @ of Rs.22,96,875/- per hectare and Rs.34,45,312/- per hectare for irrigated land ie., one and half time of un-irrigated land and directed the appellant to pay the compensation accordingly. He further submits that the deduction of 20% instead of 35% on account of appreciation of market value. He submits that similar compensation be awarded in the present batch of first appeals.

29

26.. In reply, learned Government Advocate has drawn our attention to the order dated 12.9.2014 passed in F.A.No.218/2007 and order dated 13.12.2011 passed in F.A.No.707/2011 and submitted that amount of compensation awarded by the reference court is higher side. In the first appeal No.218/2007, the land for Special Economic Zone was acquired by issuing notification under Section 4(1) on 3.2.1995 whereas in the present case the Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 3.1.2003 and thus, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. It is not in dispute that land in question situated in the same village ie. Kheda and acquired for the same purpose ie., SEZ. In First Appeal this court accepted the sale deed Exhibit P/2 dated 17.12.1999 as the touchstone for determination of the compensation payable for identically situated land, there could be no justification for awarding less compensation to the appellants (see Salaha Begaum V/s. Land Acquisition Officer) 2013 (11) SCC 426.

27. In the case of Jasvinder Singh V/s. Land Acquisition Tribunal reported as 2012 (12) SCC 313, the land was acquired in 1972. Sale - deed relied upon by the LAO from 1970. The Apex Court held that the High court should have granted the benefit of notional increase in market value of acquired land for two years at the rate of 12% per annum with other statutory benefit including soletium.

30

28. In the case of Ahsanul Hoda V/s. State of Bihar reported as 2013 (14) SCC 59 the Apex Court held that to make appropriate deduction towards development cost while determining the value of large extent of agriculture land with reference to value of small residential plot in the vicinity which may not be less than 20% to 25%. The Apex Court held that the Courts can rely on sale deeds of smaller residential plots while determining the market value of larger agriculture land.

29. In the case of Haryana State Agriculture Market Board V/s. Krishnan Kumar reported as 2011 (15) SCC 297, the Apex Court held that normally it is not safe to proceed on the basis of circle rates or Collector's rates, as they are broad assessments which may or may not be based on proper scientific survey and verification. It is well settled that the market value has to be determined with reference to comparable lands and with reference to comparable sales, if available. The commercial plots are not comparable to the acquired lands. Insofar as small residential plots abutting the main road leading to G.T. Road they cannot obviously be applied directly without any deductions to arrive at the value of undeveloped agricultural land even if the acquired lands may be situated immediately near the town outskirts. Further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the cost of drawing

31

electrical, water and sewer lines.

30. It is settled law that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:

(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.

(ii) Existing use of the land.

(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area.

(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.

31. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

32. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

32

33. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, uses to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institution. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration.

34. As per memorandum of First Appeal No.444/2009 (page 81 of the paper - book), the land owners have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.17,02,381/- per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.25,53,572 per hectare for irrigated land. In the present case, the landowners examined Kanaklata and produced sale deed Exhibit P/2 to P/7. She has proved the sale deed executed between 24.1.1995 to 29.12.2000. The areas in the aforesaid sale deeds are only 23,000 sq ft. to 1,000 sq ft. The area in Exhibit P/7 is only 0.009 and half hectares. Exhibit

33

P/6 is the sale deed of 17.12.1999, according to which the market value per hectare of land at village Kheda and Bardari is Rs.13,09,524 lacs per hectare. Relying on the decision of

Sitabai & Ors. (Supra) and in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, District Badaun V/s. Bipin Kumar & Anr., reported as 2004 (2) SCC 283, we enhanced the price at the rate of 15% per year since the sale deed related to the period approximately 3 years earlier, it would again work out to a figure not less than (Rs.587142/-). Thus, total amount comes to Rs.1896666/- per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.2844999/- per hectare for irrigated land ie., @ one and half time of unirrigated land.

35. In the present bunch of appeals, the land is acquired for 'Special Economic Zone' and thus, no much development is required. Thus, it is a case of less deduction. In our opinion a deduction of 25% from the market value on account of development charges and other possible expenditure would be justifiable and called for in the facts and circumstances of the present case. After deducting @ 25% the market value comes to Rs.14,22,499.5 (Rs.18,96,667 - Rs.4,74,166.5 = Rs.14,22,499.5) per hectare for unirrigated land and after deducting 25%, the market value comes to Rs.21,33,749.25/- (Rs.28,44,999 - Rs.7,11,249.75 = Rs.21,33,749.25/-) per hectare for irrigated land.

34

36. For the above mentioned reasons, all the appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed. The appeals filed by the claimants/landowners are partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned reference court in all these appeals is modified to the extent that per hectare market value of the acquired land is assessed to Rs.14,22,499.5 per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.21,33,749.25/- per hectare for irrigated land. In other words, the landowners whose land was acquired in these proceedings are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs.14,22,499.5 per hectare for unirrigated land and Rs.21,33,749.25/- per hectare for irrigated land. In addition the landowners are also entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the Act, which shall be worked out on the basis of rate determined by this court along with interest at the rate awarded by the reference Court.

37. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that originally they valued their appeals as per column No.4 of para 1, which is part of the order, but they inspite of number of opportunities granted by the Registry as well as by this Court failed to make the payment of deficit court fees. It is also stated that their application filed under Section 149 of CPC was allowed but as stay was granted by this Court against the impugned award in favour of the State of MP subject to depositing the 30% of the amount and the aforesaid amount of

35

30% has not been deposited by the State in number of cases and, therefore, the landowners have not paid the ad valorem court fees and to save their appeal they reduced the valuation of the appeal and paid the Court fees as per amended valuation. He submits that the market value of the lands is much more than the amount assessed by the reference court but as the landowners were not in a position to pay the amount of court fees, they restricted their claim to Rs.5,00,000/- only. He submitted that similar question has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of in the case of Chandrashekar & Ors. vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported as AIR 2009 SC 3012 and held that they should not deprive for their rightful claim of compensation on the technical ground of want of requisite court fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit court fee. Para 13, 14 and 16 are relevant which reads as under :-

"13. From the observations as quoted herein earlier, we conclude that the decision of the Constitution Bench in Buta Singh (supra) has not reversed the decision in Bhag Singh (supra) and the law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) is materially different from the law established by this court in Bhag Singh (supra) since both the decisions dealt with different matters and moreover the Scheduled Caste Coop. (supra) decision has in fact recognised the validity of the law laid down in Bhag Singh (supra). Therefore, we are of the opinion that following the judgment of Bhag Singh (supra) in the present case shall not be in conflict with the opinion of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Buta

36

Singh (supra). Thus, in our opinion, it is settled that the High Court should not have deprived the appellants of their rightful claim on the technical ground of want of requisite Court Fees and an opportunity should have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit Court Fee. This position is also supported by the decision of this court in a recent case viz. Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2008) 10 SCC 797] wherein it has been held that the High Court should have, after taking note of the facts of the case and the market value determined by it, awarded the higher compensation subject to the payment of the balance court fee.

14. Since we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in denying the appellants compensation @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. after having recorded its finding that the value of the required land would be not less than @ Rs.32.10/- pr Sq. Ft. on a mere technical ground that the Court Fee paid by the appellants would entitle them to compensation of only Rs.23/- per Sq. Ft., we now proceed to consider the other submissions of the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the High Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.100.50/- per Sq. Ft. in MFA No. 2366/2003 (LAC) C/W MFA CR.OB. No. 52/2004 [Asst. Commissioner & the LAO, Bijapur v Tukaram S/o. Shivaram Zinjade, arising out of LAC No. 180/1998], the appellants should also be awarded compensation at the same rate affording an opportunity to them to pay the deficit court fee. In this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Pal Singh v. UT of Chandigarh [AIR

1993 SC 225].

16. Thus, for a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of that same court and this requirement is fulfilled in the present case. However, the requirement was that it must have been proved by the person relying upon such judgment by adducing evidence aliunde and that due regard being given to all other attendant facts and circumstances it could furnish the basis for

37

determining the market value of the acquired land, is in our opinion the more important test for admission of such previous decision of the High Court for determination of the market value of the land acquired in the present case. On a perusal of the materials submitted before us by the appellants, we must conclude that the appellants had failed to satisfactorily furnish the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land according to the decision of the same High Court in Assistant Commissioner & the LAO (supra) at Rs.100.50/-. Per sq. ft. Thus, we conclude that this plea of the appellants is not acceptable in the present case.

38. In reply, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel about their in-capacity/disinclination to pay the court fee is doubtful having regard to the fact that the landowners have received a substantial amount by way of compensation under the award made by the Collector and 30% of the amount as awarded by the reference Court.

39. She further submitted that in some of the cases there was delay in depositing the amount. The appellants voluntarily restricted their claim and reduced the amount of compensation and, therefore, appellants appeal be restricted as per their amended claim.

40. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Chandrashekar & Ors. vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), we allow the prayer of the landowners, who have reduced the valuation of their appeal by holding that they are entitled to claim the rate as fixed in paragraph 36 of this

38

judgment subject to payment of advalorem Court - fees.

41. It is made clear that the enhanced compensation which is now been directed to pay to the appellants- claimants/landowners who are appellants in these bunch of appeals and the same shall be paid if the appellants - landowners shall deposit the requisite court fees on the aforesaid enhanced amount within 4 months from the date of supply of copy of this order to this Court. It is also made clear that they are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation only after payment of deficit court fees to the High Court. If the deficit court fees is paid within specified time as fixed by this Court, the Registry will issue necessary certificate to them and then only they will be entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation.

42. In the result, all the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed in part to the extent as indicated hereinabove with cost.

43. Counsel fees as per schedule as certified.

44. Original judgment be retained in the record of First Appeal No.444/2009 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of First Appeal No.831/2010 as well as all other connected first appeals.

(P.K. JAISWAL) (J. K. JAIN)

JUDGE JUDGE