The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manoj Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
1 FA-1796-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 4 OF AUGUST, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1796 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
JAISINGH SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 1797 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOJ SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1798 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOHAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
2 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1799 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHANKAR
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1800 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMESH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1801 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VIJAN
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
3 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1803 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KOKILA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1806 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NEELA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates
for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1807 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AMAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
4 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1809 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PARVAT SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1810 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BADRI SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1812 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
JAGGANNATH SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
5 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1813 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANGYA
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2203 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHEELU BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates
for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2204 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAHLAD SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
6 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2205 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DHYANA
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2224 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI SHER SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2225 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI MANTAGYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
7 FA-1796-2024
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates

for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2226 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI SURESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2227 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KAMAL SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2228 of 2024
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI THAKUR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
8 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2229 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI PIRTHE SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2230 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
TANTU
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2231 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI BABU SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SHRI VIKRAM SINGH AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
9 FA-1796-2024
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh

Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2233 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
CHHOGALAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS SEVANTI BAI AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2234 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. DEVKI BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates
for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2236 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI DILAWAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
10 FA-1796-2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 2237 of 2024

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KISHOR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS GEETA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2238 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
GABARU (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS SMT. MUKTI BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates
for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2241 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NATTHU SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2242 of 2024
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
11 FA-1796-2024
RAMCHANDRA

Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2243 of 2024
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AMIT SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2244 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS SMT. SANTOSH BAI
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates
for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2245 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
12 FA-1796-2024
SHRI VIKRAM SINGH

Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 2247 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
TARU SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 782 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI RAMSINGH S/O LATE SHRI HARCHAND DEAD THROUGH LRS
SMT. GENDA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Manoj Kumar Parashar, Shri Shashank Upadhyay, Shri Kamlesh
Kumar Mishra - Advocates for the Respondent No.1.
FIRST APPEAL No. 1671 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
13 FA-1796-2024
RANUBAI

Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kesharwani - Government Advocate for the
Appellant/State.
Shri Shashank Upadhyay and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Mishra - Advocates
for the Respondent No.1.
ORDER
These batch of appeals are filed challenging the award of the Reference
Court/authority under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short Act of 2013).
The appeals are filed under Section 74 of the Act of 2013 by the State challenging
the impugned award/order of the Reference Court/Authority whereby the
compensation awarded by the Collector has been enhanced by the Reference
Court.
2. All these appeals involve a singular question that whether the
infrastructure for irrigation purposes like tubewells, wells, pipelines, etc. had to be
valued separately for arriving at just compensation for the acquired land so also
the trees standing on the land, as to whether the trees were also to be assessed
separately for the purpose of ascertaining the just compensation for acquisition.
3. The State Government in all these cases gave compensation for the land
which is not in dispute and the award of compensation has not been found to be
erroneous by the Reference Court to the extent of land is concerned. However, to
the extent of standing trees and irrigation infrastructure on the lands, the Collector
had not awarded any compensation which has now been awarded by the
Reference Court as per the infrastructure and standing trees found in the survey
reports prepared by the State and granting valuation of the trees as per the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
14 FA-1796-2024
guideline value of the year 2017 -18 issued by the State Government as

Circle/Guideline Rates.
4. Therefore, the facts of the case are not at all in dispute, i.e. the extent of
irrigation infrastructure, the number of trees, the circumference of stem of trees,
etc. and these are not in dispute and what is in dispute is that whether the
valuation of the irrigation infrastructure and standing trees was required to be
separately made, or whether it was not required to be separately made. The State
has not granted any compensation for any other standing infrastructure and trees
except Houses. Apart from land, only compensation of constructed residential
buildings has been given and no compensation for irrigation Infrastructure and
standing trees has been given which is in dispute in all these cases.
5. Since all these cases involve similar issues, therefore for the sake of
convenience, facts are taken from F.A.No.1796 of 2024.
6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that since at the
time of sale of land, the irrigation infrastructure is usually not separately valued
by the Registrar at the time of sale of lands while arriving at proper adjudication of
stamp duty. It was also argued that irrigation infrastructure, when sold, is not
chargeable to separate Stamp Duty, therefore for grant of compensation also, the
irrigation infrastructure was not required to be separately valued and compensated
to the land loser. In similar breath, it is is argued that usually trees are also not
separately disclosed in cases of sale of lands, and trees when sold separately, are
not chargeable to separate Stamp Duty. Therefore the trees were also not required
to be separately valued and compensated to the land loser. Learned counsel for the
State has vehemently relied on a letter dated 26.02.2018 issued by Additional
Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of M.P. as per which
it has been stated that no compensation shall be granted for standing trees and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
15 FA-1796-2024
irrigation infrastructure on these acquired lands. The lands have been acquired for

irrigation project of Water Resources Department.
7. It is argued that the the Reference Court has erred in not considering the
said order of the Water Resources Department and the Reference Court has
awarded compensation to the land loser ignoring the said order dated 26.02.2018
issued by the Water Resources Department. Therefore, the impugned awards
passed by the Reference Court be set aside and the awards of compensation
granted by the Collector be confirmed.
8. Per contra, it is argued by learned Counsel for the land losers that the
facts of the trees standing on the land their circumference, etc. are not in dispute
and admittedly, the irrigation infrastructure and trees were standing on the land
and they were required to be compensated separately to the land losers in terms of
Section 27 of Act of 2013. Therefore the impugned awards passed by the
Reference Court be maintained and the appeals filed by the State be rejected.
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length and
perused the record.
10. The appeals of the State are founded on the letter dated 26.02.2018 of
Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department. Though the said letter
was pleaded in the reply of the State filed before the Reference Court, but since
the State did not lead any evidence therefore, the said letter is not part of the
record of the Reference Court. Even alongwith the reply, copy of this letter was
not filed and it was vehemently relied in during course of hearing of these appeals
by learned Counsel for the State.
11. Though this letter is not part of record of the Trial Court because it is
neither a part of the record as exhibited document and not even as unexhibited
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
16 FA-1796-2024
document, therefore it is not required to be considered at all at appellate stage by

this Court in absence of any application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. But even
if this document is seen in the interest of justice, then also it does not make any
real difference at all. The said letter/order of Additional Chief Secretary, Water
Resources Department reads as under:-

म य देश शासन

जल संसाधन वभाग

मं ालय
971/ / /2018
मांक अनुस जस व भोपाल
26.02.2018
दनांक
,
ित
1.
सम त कले टर ।
2. ,
सम त काय "पालन यं ी जल संसाधन वभाग ।
:- /
वषय कृ ष भूिम के अज "न य म ' प (रस)प*य+ का दोहरा भुगतान रोकने वषयक ।

िसंचाई प (रयोजनाओं के िलए अ 1ज"त अथवा य क 3 जाने वाली भूिम के मू 4य

िनधा "रण िलए कले टर गाईड लाईन दर पर िनधा "(रत भूिम के अित (र7 भूिम पर उपल 9ध
/
प (रस)प*यां यथा िसंचाई के साधन एवं वृ : आ द का अित (र7 मू 4य मुआवजा िनयत

कर भुगतान आदेश जार < कए जाने क 3 जानकार < विभ=न समी :ा बैठक + म ' ाA है।
हुई
2. -
भूिम के य वय के सं Bयवहार एवं र 1जC< म ' न केवल भूिम का मू 4य शािमल

होता है भूिम पर उपल 9ध प (रस)प*य+ का मू 4य भी शािमल होता है। इसी कारण
वरन्
, ,
भूिम पर उपल 9ध Fयूबवेल कुए वृ : आ द क 3 पृथक से र 1जC< नह <ं कराई जाती है और
-
न ह < इ =ह' भूिम से अलग कर य वय का सं Bयवहार कया जाता है।
3.
कले टर गाईड लाईन म ' िनधा "(रत भूिम के मू 4य म ' भूिम पर उपल 9ध
, -
प (रस)प*यां शािमल होती है। महािनर <:क पंजीयन एवं मु Hांक Iारा समय समय पर
, ,
जार < िसंिचत भूिम क 3 कले टर गाईड लाईन दर म ' कुए Fयूबवेल आ द का मू 4य पृथक
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
17 FA-1796-2024

से नह <ं जोड़े जाने का पK लेख कया गया है। इसका कारण यह है क कृ ष भूिम म


िसंचाई के साधन उपल 9ध होने के कारण ह < भूिम का मू 4य अिसंिचत भूिम से अिधक रखा

जाता है।
4.
सहमित से भूिम य करने क 3 नीित म ' भी भूिम का बाजार मू 4य कले टर गाईड

लाईन पर आधा (रत है। कले टर गाईड लाईन म ' िनधा "(रत भूिम के मू 4य म ' भूिम पर

उपल 9ध प (रस)पयां शािमल होने से प (रस)पय+ का पृथक से मू 4यांकन कर
/
मू 4य मुआवजा भुगतान कराया जाने से दोहरे भुगतान क 3 1थित उ Mप=न होती है जो

अनुिचत है।
5. ( )
अतः य द भूिम पर उपल 9ध प (रस)प*य+ मकान छोड़कर का पृथक से मू 4यांकन

कर दोहरा भुगतान कया जा रहा हो तो ऐसी Bयवथा त Mकाल भाव से ब =द करने का

क K कर ' ।

(
राधे Qयाम
)
जुलािनया

अपर मु Rय
सिचव

जल संसाधन
वभाग
12. As per this letter, it has been stated by the Additional Chief Secretary
that since at the time of sale of land, separate registered document is not executed
for irrigation infrastructure and standing trees, nor these when sold separately are
chargeable to Stamp Duty, therefore these are not to be taken into account for the
purpose of calculation of compensation.
13. The aforesaid letter of the State of the Water Resources Department is a
letter by one of the parties to the acquisition proceedings because the acquisition
has taken place for irrigation scheme of Water Resources Department and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
18 FA-1796-2024
Collector was not bound by any decision taken by one party to the acquisition as

the Collector is duty bound to arrive at just and fair compensation as per the Act
of 2013. This letter is a glaring example of either the sheer ignorance of the
Additional Chief Secretary to the legal position, or a sheer unholy attempt by the
State in cirumventing the statutory provisions of Act of 2013 by issuing executive
instructions. It is really unfortunate that by such an illegal letter issued by the
Water Resources Department, the just compensation has been delayed to the land-
losers for almost ten years till today. The said letter/order is not an ill-advised
circular, but is an illegal advisory.
14. The aforesaid letter/order is absolutely in face of Section 27 of Act of
2013 which mandates that all assets attached to the land have to be taken into
consideration and compensated to the land loser whose land has been acquired.
The party to the acquisition that is Water Resources Department would not have
issued a letter which rise in face of section 27 of Act of 2013 and this letter is
nothing but an attempt to circumvent the statutory provisions of Act of 2013. The
Collector erroneously took note of this letter which is a illegal letter not having
any sanctity under the law and issued contrary to mandatory provisions of Section
27 of Act of 2013. That illegality has rightly been set right by the Reference Court
by granting compensation for standing trees and irrigation infrastructure.
15. The record of the Reference Court has been perused by this Court and
as per record of the Reference Court, the valuation reports and survey reports are
duly on record. As per Ex.A-5, the valuation report is there which mentions the
number of standing trees of each land loser. The detailed report of these trees is
also on record as Ex.A-6 wherein the number of trees and circumference of each
of the trees has been mentioned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
19 FA-1796-2024
16. The guideline rates are also on record as Ex.A-7 as per which all the

timber bearing tree of Teak Wood in case of circumstance more than 45cm, value
would be Rs.50,000/- and for other timber bearing trees like Saal, Sheesham, Saja,
etc., the value would be Rs.30,000/-. For fruit bearing trees, the value would be
Rs.10,000/- and for other trees the value would be Rs.5,000/- . For trees having
circumference less than 45 centimeter, the value would be Rs.3000/-.
17. The Reference Court has awarded compensation for the trees only in
accordance with these guideline rates issued by the Inspector General of
Registration-cum-Chairman, Central Valuation Board, Madhya Pradesh who has
issued the circle/guideline rates.
18. So far the irrigation infrastructure is concerned, the irrigation
infrastructure is also assessed by the Valuation Committee which has conducted
the spot inspection and has found the irrigation infrastructure to be existing. Once
irrigation infrastructure was existing on the acquired land in the shape of Tube-
well, well, etc. which got consumed by water of the pond for which the
acquisition has taken place, then it would amount to loss to the land loser. The
land-loser must have invested something for construction of well, excavation of
tube-well, providing pipelines, motors, electricity connections, poles,
transformers, etc. for such irrigation purposes. All this had to be compensated in
terms of Section 27 of the Act of 2013. The Collector could not have held that
since on account of irrigation infrastructure, the land has been found to be
irrigated land and compensation has been given on the basis of value of irrigated
land, then separate compensation should not be given for irrigation infrastructure.
19. The compensation is given for irrigated land taking into account the
loss of crops for irrigated land where the person may have two or more crops in
every year if the land is irrigated. On the other hand, in case of unirrigated land, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
20 FA-1796-2024
may have only one crop in the year. So far as the compensation for irrigation

infrastructure is concerned, though that infrastructure might have enhanced the
value of the land and the landowner might already have got the enhanced
compensation as per irrigated land but the investment made in such irrigation
infrastructure like Tube-well, well, water pump, etc. if it is lost by the land user,
then it has to be compensated separately because it is also separate loss for the
land loser, apart from loss of crops.
20. There was absolutely no reason to connect the Stamp Duty not being
payable in separate sale of trees and irrigation infrastructure. What was being
assessed was loss to the land-loser, and not Stamp Duty to the State.
21. Therefore, this Court does not find any error or perversity in the
impugned award passed by the Reference Court whereby the Reference Court has
held that separate compensation had to be paid for irrigation infrastructure like
Tube -well, wells, pipelines, water pump, etc. in the land and also for standing
trees in the land.
22. At this stage, learned counsel for the State has contended that on the
12% amount awarded as per section 30 (3) by the Reference Court also, solatium
has been awarded which cannot be ordered in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Dealers Private Limited vs. Metro Railway,
Kolkata (SLP (Civil) No.14078 of 2019). Though the Reference Court has not
ordered calculation of solatium by including the principal value of the assets and
land as well as the 12% amount as per Section 30(3), but for the sake of clarity, it
is clarified by this Court that solatium shall be payable only on the principal
amount of compensation and not by including the amount of 12% as per section
30(3) to the principal amount.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:59273
21 FA-1796-2024
21. In the above terms, with the aforesaid observation, the appeals fail and

are dismissed with costs throughout.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM