C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 1 -

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7312     OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.11118 of 2007]

KAMRUL ISAM ALVI   ....Appellant

Versus

STATE OF M.P. ....Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant’s land admeasuring 3.10 acres situated at  

village  Pehantala,  Tehsil  &  District  Hoshangabad  

falling  in  survey  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  the  amount  of  compensation  

payable  to  the  appellant.   He  assessed  the  

compensation at Rs. 6,523.95.  The said compensation  

was  accepted  by  the  appellant  under  protest  and

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 2 -

reference was sought to be made to the Reference  

Court by filing an application under Section 18 of  

the Act.

3. Initially, when the appellant filed his application  

praying for reference to the Civil Court before the  

Land Acquisition Officer a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was  

claimed  on  account  of  water  reservoir  and  sluice  

gate constructed thereon, which was in addition to a  

claim of compensation of Rs. 15,500/- in respect of  

the  acquired  land.   However,  record  shows  that  

appellant had also filed another application by way  

of statement of claim on 22.3.78 before the Land  

Acquisition  Officer,  Hoshangabad,  praying  therein  

that  compensation  for  water  reservoir  and  sluice  

gate  installed  thereon  should  be  payable  at  

Rs.6,46,579.95.  

4. Accepting the contention of the appellant that the  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  had  not  awarded  

compensation with respect to the water reservoir and  

the sluice gate, the Reference Court, while noting  

that it cannot exercise the original jurisdiction of  

Land  Acquisition  Officer,  vide  order  dated  

05.07.1983,  remitted  the  matter  to  the  Land  

Acquisition  Officer  for  fixation  of  compensation

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 3 -

with  respect  to  water  reservoir  and  sluice  gate.  

This application was duly placed on record and Land  

Acquisition  Officer  was  fully  aware  of  the  

enhancement of the claim made by the appellant.

5. However, the Land Acquisition Officer vide his award  

dated  28.10.1983  even  though  considered  that  

appellant  had  claimed  Rs.  6,46,579.95,  as  

compensation  towards  water   reservoir  and  sluice  

gate  but  in  his  wisdom  accepting  the  evaluation  

report of the Irrigation Ministry and rejecting that  

of an Engineer he awarded a sum of Rs.24,145/- for  

the  same  and  also  awarded  interest  @  6%  with  

solatium at the rate of 15%. Thus, the total amount  

came to be Rs.43,463.75.  

6. Feeling  dissatisfied  therewith,  the  appellant  

preferred  another  reference  being  Reference  No.  

46/84.

7. It is also pertinent to mention here that before the  

Reference Court, that is, First Additional District  

Judge, Hoshangabad in Reference Case No. 46/84 in  

the statement of claim filed by the appellant on  

24.11.1984,  he  had  specifically  claimed  a  sum  of  

Rs.6,46,579.95  as  compensation  for  the  water  

reservoir and sluice gate installed therein.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 4 -

8.    Order dated 05.07.1983 passed by Reference Court  

makes it clear that award was contested mainly on  

two grounds. Firstly, that the land sought to be  

acquired  was  irrigated  and  market  value  was  Rs.  

5000/-  per  acre  and  secondly,  the  compensation  

regarding Bandhan i.e. water reservoir and sluice  

gate should have been fixed at Rs. 6,46,579.95. The  

Reference  Court  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  

compensation for the water reservoir and sluice gate  

had not been assessed, therefore, matter deserved to  

be remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer.

9. Following is the relevant  and operative part of the  

order dated 5.7.1983:

“In the result  the reference is sent  back  to  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  with  direction  that  it  shall  fix  the  compensation  regarding  the  acquired  Bandhan  and  gates.   The  evidence  adduced in the Court will be read as  evidence  before  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  after  fixing  the  compensation  it is contested by the  applicant  then  the Land Acquisition Officer may again  make reference as per law.  Parties to  appear before Land Acquisition Officer.”

( Sd/- ) First  Addl.Judge  to  the  Court of District Judge. Hoshangabad.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 5 -

10. After  remand  by  Reference  Court  to  the  Land  

Acquisition Officer, fresh award came to be passed  

on  26.10.1983.  In  the  same,  despite   specific  

direction  issued  by  Reference  Court,  as  noted  

earlier,  the  amount  of  compensation  for  water  

reservoir and sluice gate was again fixed only at  

Rs. 43,463/-.  The appellant herein once again filed  

application under Section 18 of the Act praying for  

reference to the Civil Court for grant of adequate  

and proper compensation for the said reservoir and  

sluice gate.

11. The  Reference  Court  vide  order  dated  20.06.1994,  

after considering the evidence available on record  

and  relying  on  a  decision  of  the  High  Court  of  

Punjab & Haryana in the case of  Radhey Shyam vs.  

State of Haryana AIR 1981 (P&H) 57 fixed a sum of  

Rs.5,45,738 as compensation for the reservoir and  

sluice gate together with 30% solatium and interest  

as required to be paid to the appellant under the  

provisions of the Act.

12. Feeling aggrieved by the said order/award passed in  

Reference  Case  No.  46/84  (old  No.  1/77)  on  

20.6.1994, respondent -the State of Madhya Pradesh

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 6 -

preferred  an  appeal  in  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  

Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 54 of the Act.  

13. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 2.4.2007,  

a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  

at Jabalpur was pleased to set aside the award dated  

20.06.94 passed by Reference Court in  favour  of  

the appellant and the compensation of Rs.43,463 for  

water reservoir and sluice gate, as was fixed by the  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  after  remand,  has  been  

upheld.

14. Hence this appeal.

15. Critical  examination  and  perusal  of  the  impugned  

order  passed  by  the  High  Court  shows  that  it  

proceeded on the assumption that appellant had not  

claimed amount of Rs. 6,46,579.95 as compensation  

for  water  reservoir  and  sluice  gate  and  he  had  

confined  his  claim  only  at  Rs.  25,000/-  for  the  

same.

16. It  appears  to  us  that  the  learned  Government  

Advocate, who  appeared before the Division Bench,  

had probably due to bona fide mistake not brought  

to  the  notice  of  the  Court,  appellant’s  

application/statement  of  claim  dated  22.3.1978

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 7 -

claiming  specifically  a  sum  of  Rs.  6,46,579/-  as  

compensation  for water reservoir and sluice gate.   

17. Even though, this fact also finds place in the first  

order passed by Reference Court on 5.7.1983 wherein,  

in  the  second  part  of  the  said  order,  which  is  

relevant  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  the  said  

appeal, it has been mentioned as under:

“The applicant  has contested the award  on  two  grounds  firstly  the  acquired  land  was  irrigated  one  and  the  works  value of it at the time of acquisition  was  Rs.  5000/-  per  acre  hence  he  is  entitled  to  Rs.  15,500/-  as  compensation  for  the  land,  and  secondly, the land acquisition officer  has  not  fixed  the  compensation  regarding  the  Bandhan  and  its  sluice  gates  fixed  in  the  said  Bandhan  for  which  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  Rs.6,46,579.95 P as compensation.”

18. It is not disputed  before us that against the said  

order  passed  by  Reference  Court  on  5.7.1983,  no  

appeal was preferred by the State and the said order  

had attained finality.  That being so, it can safely  

be  presumed  that  respondent-State  was  fully  

satisfied with the said order passed by Reference  

Court   on  5.7.1983.  In  the  said  order,  it  is  

categorically mentioned by the learned Judge of the

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 8 -

Reference  Court  that  the  amount   claimed  by  

appellant  for  water  reservoir  and  sluice  gate  be  

assessed at Rs.6,46,579.95.

19. Once this order came to be passed and matter stood  

remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer, obviously,  

the  parties  went  to  trial  with  the  clear  

understanding  that  what  has  been  claimed  by  the  

appellant herein for the water reservoir and sluice  

gate was as mentioned hereinabove and not at the  

rate of Rs.25,000/- only as was claimed earlier.

20. The reasoning of the  High Court that under Section  

25 of the Act, which existed prior to 24.9.1984,  

only those amounts would be payable to the appellant  

which  have  been  claimed  specifically,  does  not  

appear to be borne out from the record.  In the  

teeth  of  the  order  dated  5.7.1983,  appellant’s  

application dated 22.3.1978 filed before the Land  

Acquisition  Officer  and  statement  of  claim  dated  

24.11.1984 filed by the appellant, it was crystal  

clear that a sum of Rs.6,46,579.95 was claimed for  

water  reservoir  and  sluice  gate.   Thus,  the  

reasoning of the High Court does not appear to be  

legally tenable.

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 9 -

21. Obviously, it appears to be a bona-fide mistake on  

the part of the learned Government Advocate who did  

not  notice  the  Order  dated  5.7.1983  and  the  

appellant’s  earlier  application  filed  before  the  

Land  Acquisition  Officer  on  22.3.1978  wherein  a  

specific claim was made for  awarding compensation  

for  the  water  reservoir  and  sluice  gate  at  Rs.  

6,46,579.95.  That being so, we are of the opinion  

that  looking  to  the  matter  from  any  angle,  the  

impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law.  It is  

hereby  set  aside  and  quashed.   The  award  of  the  

Reference Court dated 20.6.1994 in Reference Case  

No. 46/84 (old No. 1/77) is hereby restored with all  

consequential benefits as mentioned therein.

22. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent  

with costs throughout.  Counsel’s fee Rs. 10,000/-.

...............J.  [V.S. Sirpurkar]

.............. .J.

[Deepak  Verma]

New Delhi. November 04, 2009.    

C.A. @ S.L.P.(C) No.11118 of 2007     - 10 -