N.T.P.C. Limited Barethi (Rajnagar) District Chhatarpur Through Its Chief General Manager Shyam Kuma vs Arjun Singh

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J ABAL PUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
FIRST APPEAL No. 1282 of 2025
N.T.P.C. LIMITED BARETHI RAJNAGAR DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR
Versus
SMT KASTURI BAI AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 491 of 2025
SHIVRAJ SINGH
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1284 of 2025
N.T.P.C. LIMITED BARETHI (RAJNAGAR) DISTRICT
CHHATARPUR THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
SHYAM KUMA
Versus
ARJUN SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramesh Kumar Verma - Senior Advocate with Shri Neeraj
Shrivastav - Advocates for the appellants in their respective cases.
Devendra Singh Baghel
Shri – Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
(Reserved on : 07.08.2026)
(Pronounced on : 03.09.2026)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

2
This batch of three appeals has been filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act being aggrieved by two different awards of the
Reference Court and challenge is made on identical terms in relation to the
same project.
2. First Appeal No. 1282 of 2025 has been filed by the beneficiary of
the acquisition, i.e. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as "NTPC" for short), which is aggrieved by the
award dated 06.01.2024, whereby the award passed by the Collector has
been interfered by the Reference Court and the quantum of compensation
has been enhanced by the Reference Court.
3. FA No.491 of 2025 and FA No. 1284 of 2025 have been passed
challenging the same award in Ex. LA No.38 of 2020 by the Reference
Court, whereby in relation to four co-owners, who are brothers, the
Reference Court has enhanced the compensation, which is the subject
matter of challenge by NTPC in FA No. 1284 of 2025; whereas against the
same award of the Reference Court, FA No.491 of 2025 has been filed by
one of the land losers, namely Shivraj Singh seeking further enhancement
of the amount awarded by the Reference Court.
4. A common ground is raised by the beneficiary of acquisition in
FA No.1282 of 2025 and FA No.1284 of 2025 is as to post-award
agreement with the land losers, which is stated to have extinguished the
right of the land loser to initiate reference proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

3
5. The acquisition in question was for the establishment of a project
of NTPC Limited for establishment of 2 x 600 MW Power Project at
Village Barethi, Tehsil Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur.
6. Learned counsel for NTPC in FA No.1282 of 2025 has
vehemently argued that an agreement was executed between the land loser,
Smt. Kasturi Bai and NTPC Limited after passing of the award, but before
filing of the reference application. It is argued that the said agreement
could not be placed on record before the Reference Court on account of a
miscommunication with the counsel because the NTPC was under
impression that counsel would have placed the said agreement on record,
because that agreement had been supplied to the counsel, who had
appeared for NTPC before the Reference Court.
7. It is argued that the Collector had awarded an amount of
Rs.10,02,283/- for the 2/3rd share of respondent No.1 in the lands
contained in Survey Nos. 845/2 and 846/2. The share of respondent No. 1
was 2/3rd in the aforesaid lands, the total area of the lands being 2.972
hectares, it being so recorded in the revenue records.
8. It is argued that the Reference Court has erred in granting
enhanced compensation for the entire 2.972 hectares of land to respondent
No.1, Kasturi Bai by its impugned award dated 06.01.2024. It is further
argued that the Reference Court has enhanced the amount awarded to the
land loser, though the award of Collector was dated 05.12.2012 and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

4
reference application had been filed before the Collector on 22.01.2013. In
between these two dates, an agreement was executed with the land loser on
02.01.2013 as per which an additional amount was agreed to be paid to the
land loser towards resettlement and other benefits, which is an additional
amount of Rs.27,01,959.57 that was in addition to what had been awarded
by the Collector, thereby taking the total compensation to Rs.37,04,242.90.
9. The respondent No.1 had accepted the said amount, which was
paid to her vide post-dated cheque dated 15.01.2013 and the receipt of the
entire amount of Rs.37,00,000/- was admitted by respondent No.1 in her
deposition before the Reference Court.
10. However, since before the Reference Court the agreement could
not be placed on record by the NTPC, therefore, the Reference Court has
decided the reference on merits. It is argued that a copy of agreement has
been placed on record along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of
the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in this appeal, and it is something
which goes to the root of the matter and should be considered by this
Court.
11. It is further argued that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2022) 7 SCC 247, the
admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not
depend on the relevance of the issue on hand or whether the applicant had
an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage, but it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

5
depends on whether the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be
adduced to enable it to pronounce an effective judgment or for any other
substantial cause and whether such additional evidence has a direct bearing
on the pronouncement of the judgment.
12. Therefore, it is argued that the agreement with the land loser
executed on 02.01.2013 extinguishes the right of the land loser to initiate a
reference in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1894"). It is argued that the primary
requirement to initiate a reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is
that the person interested must not have accepted the award. However, by
signing a mutual agreement after passing of the award, but before initiating
the reference proceedings, if the person has accepted the award by way of
mutual agreement, then it would be inferred that this person has accepted
the award and once he has accepted the award, then his right to initiate a
reference would go away.
13. In similar terms, in FA No.1284 of 2025, it is argued that there
were agreements with the four land losers in this case and agreement with
land losers Arjun Singh, Gulab Singh and Ram Singh (who are respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 4 in this appeal) were executed on 29.12.2012, 16.04.2013
and 06.06.2013 respectively and these agreements were placed on record of
the Reference Court as Exhibits D-1, D-2, and D-3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

6
14. The agreements were after passing of the award, because in this
case the award was passed on 09.11.2012 and the agreements were
executed in December, 2012, April, 2013 and June, 2013 respectively,
whereas the reference application before the Reference Court has been
filed on 20.03.2013. The land losers, having accepted the award by these
mutual agreements executed before filing reference for one respondent and
immediately after filing the reference application for two other
respondents, therefore, it would be inferred that the right of these
respondents to prosecute the reference proceedings has gone away by
executing these mutual agreements.
15. In FA No.491 of 2025, it has been argued by the appellant
Shivraj Singh that he has not executed any agreement with NTPC and
though FA No.1284 of 2025 has been filed by NTPC against the land
losers in relation to the same award, but the agreements were entered into
with three of the respondents in that case, but not with the present appellant
Shivraj Singh. Therefore, Shivraj Singh has right to defend the award and
also to seek enhancement of the awarded amount. Therefore, it is argued
that the impugned award passed by the Reference Court be interfered with
in this FA No.491 of 2025 and the amount awarded by the Reference Court
be further enhanced.
16. It is further argued that the Reference Court has not properly
awarded amounts toward structures standing on the land. More
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

7
particularly, it is argued that there was embankment on the land and the
Reference Court has not awarded anything towards embankment, which
was existing on the land. Even the reports that are on record, show that
there was embankment on the land; despite which neither the Collector nor
the Reference Court has stated anything about the embankment, which has
been found to be existing on the spot by the report prepared by the
Tehsildar, which is duly on record.
17. This Court has heard learned counsel for the rival parties at
length and perused the record.
18. Challenge in these three appeals is to two different awards
passed by the Reference Court. One is the award passed in Reference LA
No.02/2024 decided on 06.01.2024 by the Reference Court, from which
FA No. 1282 of 2025 arises. Another is Reference LA No.38/2020 decided
on 11.12.2024 by the Reference Court. From this award, FA No.491 of
2025 and FA No.1284 of 2025 arise.
19. This Court first takes up FA No.1282 of 2025 and FA No.1284
of 2025, which are two appeals filed by NTPC challenging the
enhancement made by the Reference Court. The Reference Court granted
enhancement by treating un-irrigated lands as irrigated lands and has
therefore enhanced the amount awarded by the Collector.
20. The challenge is primarily based on the position that agreements
were executed by the respondents/land losers after passing of the award of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

8
Collector accepting the award of Collector upon receiving an additional
amount from the NTPC. It is not dispute that the said additional amount
has been paid by NTPC.
21. In FA No.1282 of 2025, the NTPC has executed an agreement
dated 02.01.2013, which is after passing of the award of the Collector, but
before filing of reference application by the respondent No.1 and by this
agreement an additional amount of Rs.27,01,959.57 has been agreed to be
paid to the respondent No.1, which indisputably has been paid to her.
22. However, this agreement itself was not before the Reference
Court and has been filed along with application under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC before this Court in appeal.
23. So far as the question that any unregistered agreement executed
after passing of the award by the Collector can have the sanctity like the
agreement under Section 11(2) of Act of 1894, is to be decided first.
No doubt, as per Section 11(2) of the Act of 1894, an award can be passed
on the basis of agreement between the parties and as per Section 11(4),
such an agreement is not liable to be registered under the Registration Act,
1908.
24. The question that whether the agreement executed by the land
loser has a binding effect on the land loser, is no longer res-integra and has
been interpreted in various cases time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

9
Court, one of those being State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai, (1995) 5
SCC 746.
25. However, in the present case, it is the case of an agreement,
which is tripartite agreement executed between the State Government, the
beneficiary of acquisition and the land loser after passing of award. The
agreements in question which are before this Court in both these cases are
tripartite agreements, that is between the beneficiary of acquisition, the
land owner and the State Government. The question of post-award
agreements fell for consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, (1995) 4 SCC 428. In this case also, it
was the case of post-award agreement. The award of the Collector was
dated 17.05.1989 and after that, i.e. on 05.07.1989, there was an agreement
between the land losers and the Collector. Thereafter, land losers sought
reference to the Court. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation by
interfering in the award of the Collector, but the High Court set aside the
order of the Reference Court. Against the aforesaid order of the High
Court, the matter reached the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the right to initiate reference by making application under
Section 18 lies only to that person, who has received the amount under
protest. A person who has received the amount otherwise than under
protest is not entitled to make an application under Section 18 and the post-
award agreement indicates that the awarded amount has been received by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

10
the land owner without any protest. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid case held as under:-
“5. It will thus be clear that the persons interested in the
land are entitled to receive compensation awarded by the
Collector under Section 11 under protest and entitled to
object to the compensation determined by the Collector. No
person who had received the amount otherwise than under
protest should be entitled to make the application under
Section 18. In other words, the receipt of the amount under
protest is a condition precedent to make an application
under Section 18 within the limitation prescribed under the
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 together with the
grounds on which the objections have been taken. Thereon
the Collector is enjoined to make a reference to the civil
court with the statement in the manner stated in Section 19.
6. The petitioners professed lack of knowledge of the
jointly signed agreement Ex. B or its content. This stand
stoutly taken at the enquiry before the Judicial Officer is
obviously an afterthought. They admitted that they did not
file any protest at the time of receiving compensation. Only
one claimant, Releningster Tongwah, had filed an objection
petition that too one week after the receipt of the
compensation without protest. He stated at the enquiry that
he signed a blank paper. He admitted that the signature in
the joint statement was his but stated that the contents of
Ex. B were not explained to him. The High Court minutely
examined the evidence of all the witnesses and concluded
that their claim of oral protest is belied by the written
agreement Ex. B. The High Court also has gone into the
evidence on merits and found that award of compensation
for the paddy fields and other lands at the rates of Rs 60 to
Rs 40 per sq. m. was highly excessive and reliance upon
unregistered sale deeds in relation to other homestead
lands was illegal. It is credulous to believe that agricultural
lands would be sold and purchased on square metre basis.
Even without going into the merits, we hold that the finding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

11
of the High Court that the reference application itself is not
maintainable, is perfectly legal and does not warrant
interference.”
26. Therefore, even if there is a post-award agreement and there is
recital in the agreement that the land owner accepts the award, then it
would amount to the land owner having given up his grievance with the
award. In the present case, the agreement placed before this Court along
with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in FA No.1282/2025
contains a clear recital therein that the land owner has accepted to receive
the awarded amount and towards consideration of that, a lump sum
additional amount is being paid to the land owner.
As per the agreement, this lump sum additional amount can be considered
to be a one-time package towards rehabilitation and settlement.
27. No doubt, the land owner has a right to object to the agreement
only if he shows that the agreement was got executed under some threat or
coercion, or it is a forged piece of evidence. In FA No.1282/2025, the
agreement in question was not before the Reference Court and it has been
filed before this Court in the appeal along with IA No.11777/2026, which
is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
28. As already noted above, the document is relevant, but it is to be
seen that when the evidence was available with the party and it did not
place the evidence before the Reference Court, then whether this Court can
take cognizance of this evidence or not.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

12
29. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay
Kumar Singh (supra) that the real test is that whether the Appellate Court
requires the additional evidence, so as to enable it to pronounce judgment
or for any other substantial cause of like nature.The Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:-
“7. It is true that the general principle is that the
appellate court should not travel outside the record of the
lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal.
However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27CPC enables
the appellate court to take additional evidence in
exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the
appellate court may permit additional evidence if the
conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the
parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such
evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional
evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt
over the case and the evidence has a direct and important
bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice
clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be
permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even,
one of the circumstances in which the production of
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27CPC by the
appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the
appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to
enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial
cause of like nature.
8. As observed and held by this Court in A. Andisamy
Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar [A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A.
Subburaj Chettiar, (2015) 17 SCC 713 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ)
514] , the admissibility of additional evidence does not
depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the
fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing
such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon
whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

13
sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or
for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that
the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able
to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without
taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to
be adduced.”
30. As already noted above, since this agreement goes to the root of
the matter, and it is also necessary for this Court to pronounce effective
judgment, because if this agreement is proved, then the right of the land
owner to file application for reference itself would go away.
31. Before parting with FA No.1282/2025, this Court has to deal
with another argument put forth by learned counsel for the applicant that
the Reference Court has awarded compensation for entire area of 2.972
hectares, which was in Survey No.845/2 and 846/2, whereas the respondent
Kasturi Bai was owner of only 2/3 share in those survey numbers.
32. This assertion is found to be correct, because the revenue khasras
on record (Exhibit P-1 and P-2) clearly show that one Kaushalendra Pratap
Singh is having 1/3 share in the said lands. Even the said Kaushalendra
Pratap Singh had been impleaded in the reference application as proforma
respondent in the reference proceedings by recording in para 1 of the
reference application that Kaushalendra Pratap Singh is not inclined to
challenge the award of the Collector, therefore, he is being impleaded as
respondent No.3 in the reference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

14
33. However, that question need not be further dwelled upon by this
Court, because this Court intends to remand the matter to the Reference
Court to adjudicate as to whether the agreement dated 02.01.2013 is a
genuine document or that it is not a genuine document or that it has been
obtained by fraud or coercion. After examining this matter, if the
agreement is proved, then there would be no question of deciding any other
matter, because the reference would have to be closed by the Reference
Court in view of the agreement and only in case the agreement is not
proved and if proved is found to be obtained by fraud or coercion, then the
Reference Court would have to go into the questions like value and area of
land.
34. Therefore, FA No.1282/2025 is allowed by setting aside the
impugned award of the Reference Court dated 06.01.2024 passed in LA
No.02/2024 and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to take
evidence on the agreement dated 02.01.2013 and if the agreement is proved
to be duly executed and executed without fraud and coercion, then the
Reference Court would not proceed further in the reference. Only if the
agreement is either not proved or, if proved, is found to be executed by
fraud and coercion, only then the Reference Court would deal with the
assessment of quantum of compensation which is to be assessed.
In case the agreement is proved, then the Reference Court will follow its
assessment of valuation for area of 1.951 hectares in respect of respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

15
No.1 as the respondent No.1 has been found to be owner of 2/3 share of
land in Survey No.846/2 and 845/2, the total area of which is 2.972
hectares.
35. In the above terms, FA No.1282/2025 stands allowed and the
matter is remanded back to the Reference Court in above terms.
36. So far as F.A. No.491 of 2025 and F.A. No.1284 of 2025 are
concerned, the same arise from award passed in reference proceedings in
L.A. No.38 of 2020 decided on 11.12.2024.
37. In the present case, there were 4 land owners namely, Arjun
Singh, Ram Singh, Shivraj Singh and Gulab Singh, all sons of Jujhar
Singh. The award was passed by the Collector on 09.11.2012 and these 4
brothers filed reference application on 20.03.2013.
38. However, there have been 3 post award agreements by three of
these brothers, namely, Ajun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh who are
respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in F.A. No.1284 of 2025 and these 3 brothers
have executed different agreements with NTPC vide Ex.D-1 dated
29.12.2012, Ex. D-2 dated 16.04.2013 and Ex.D-3 dated 06.06.2013
respectively executed by Arjun Singh, Kulab Singh and Ram Singh. The
agreement Ex.D-1 executed with Arjun Singh contains the recital that it is
a tripartite agreement executed between NTPC, the landowner and State
Government and apart from whatever has been awarded by the Reference
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

16
Court, an additional amount of Rs.38,38,464 is being paid to Arjun Singh,
which would take the total compensation to Rs.53.78 lakhs.
39. In similar terms, the Ex.D-2 executed with Gulab Singh also
contains same types of recitals and the amount awarded by the Reference
Court is enhanced by Rs.31,10,014/- taking the total to Rs.43,75,018/-.
40. In Ex.D-3 executed with Ram Singh similar recital is there and
the amount awarded by the Reference Court has been enhanced by lump
sum of Rs.31,10,014/- taking the total to Rs.43,75,018/-.
41. All these agreements contain recital that the compensation
offered by the State Government is hereby accepted by the landowner to be
correct and he is receiving an additional lump sum amount towards
rehabilitation and settlement, which is a lump sum package, and upon
getting this lump sum package amount, over and above the awarded
amount, taking the total lump sum amount to the figure mentioned in the
agreement, he voluntarily hands over the possession of the land to NTPC.
42. For the reasons as have been mentioned in detail above, in view
of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wardington
Lingdoh (supra) such agreements are enforceable and binding on the
landowner. One of these agreements is before filing the reference
application and two are after filing the reference application, that does not
make any real difference. All these 3 brothers have taken the additional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

17
lump sum amount as a special package and have voluntarily handed over
the possession of the land to the NTPC.
43. The aforesaid agreement was indeed before the Reference Court
and the Reference Court has discarded these agreements by summarily
recording that the agreement does not contain the photograph of person
concerned and the person who has purchased the stamp is not mentioned
on the overleaf of stamp paper. However, there is no finding given by the
Reference Court that the agreement could not be proved, more so when the
factum of receiving the amount agreed to be paid under the agreement was
duly proved. The Reference Court has in fact even relied on this agreement
in paragraph 21 of the impugned award of Reference Court whereby the
Reference Court has considered that since amount has been accepted in
terms of the agreement Ex.D-1, therefore there would be no question of
lapse of acquisition in terms of Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The Reference Court therefore has duly found the
agreement to be proved but seems to be under a misconceived impression
that this agreement would not take away the right of the landowner/land
loser to seek enhancement of compensation to adjudge compensation as
may be assessed by the Reference Court.
44. However, in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Wardington Lingdoh (supra) , such an agreement would infer that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

18
the land loser has accepted the award and upon having accepted the award,
his right to prosecute the reference proceedings would go away and
therefore the reference proceedings to the extent of 3 respondents, i.e,
Respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Arjun Singh, Ram Singh, and Gulab Singh
were liable to be rejected as not maintainable.
45. However, so far as Respondent No.3/Shivraj Singh is concerned,
there is no agreement with Shivraj Singh and Shivraj Singh indeed had the
competence and authority as well as the cause of action to prosecute his
reference proceedings.
46. The Reference Court has allowed the reference by enhancing
compensation awarded for unirrigated land to irrigated land. During course
of arguments, this aspect was not pressed, hence, enhancement made by the
Reference Court for Shivraj Singh stands affirmed.
47. Consequently, F.A.No.1284 of 2025 is allowed in respect of
Respondents No.1, 2 and 4, i.e, Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh
and dismissed against Respondent No.3 Shivraj Singh. The enhanced
amount awarded by the Reference Court shall be payable only to the extent
of 1/4 share of Shivraj Singh and not to Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and
Gulab Singh.
48. So far as F.A.No.491 of 2025 is concerned, which is for
enhancement filed only by Shivraj Singh who has not executed any
agreement with the NTPC and State Government, it has been contended
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

19
that there was an embankment on the land in question and trees were also
there for which proper compensation has not been paid.
49. It is seen by this Court that compensation for 150 trees has duly
been assessed by the Collector which has been accepted by the Reference
Court. However, no compensation for embankment has been awarded by
the Reference Court.
50. The report of S.D.O. Ex.P-6 and Tehsildar Ex.P-7 duly contain
the facts that there are Contour dams in Survey No.748 and 791/1 having
length of 300 feet each.
51. However, during the course of deposition before the Reference
Court, Shivraj Singh was examined as AW-1 and he has stated that on his
land, there were 4 mahua trees and 6 berry trees and embankments had
been constructed by his father for storage of rainwater on the land.
Although, he has not been paid any compensation for such embankments
and trees. In para 8 of his cross examination, he stated that the
embankment was 250 feet long, 5 feet broad, and 5 feet high which was in
survey No.747 and it was 500 feet long, 4 feet high and 54 feet high then
say 5 feet high in Survey No.749/1.
52. This witness Shivraj Singh, who is the appellant herein, does not
say anything in his cross examination or in his Examination in Chief that
what is the valuation of this embankment /contour dam, which seems to be
an earthen embankment made long ago by his father in his lifetime for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

20
storage of water in the land for agricultural purposes. He did not place on
record, any valuation report or any survey report of cost of such
construction. Nothing has been stated by him that how this embankment
was constructed, whether it was constructed by manual labour or by
machines, and what will be the present cost of construction of such
embankment, which can be assessed to be a loss of structure. Not even the
cost of construction of embankment was placed on record by him.
Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the Reference Court and the
Collector not awarding any compensation for embankment /contour dam.
53. So far as the trees are concerned, the appellant Shivraj Singh has
contended that 10 trees were standing on his land and from a perusal of the
survey sheet placed on record, in the record of Reference Court, there is
some amount awarded for trees which is around Rs.40,000/-. As per
Ex.P-7, there were 150 trees on the land and a total compensation of
Rs.40,000 has been awarded for trees which seems to be about Rs.250/- per
tree, which seems to be grossly inadequate and therefore, in the considered
opinion of this Court, for the 10 trees claimed by the appellant Shivraj
Singh in his land, out of total 150 trees, he is entitled to additional
compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per tree i.e, Rs.50,000/- and he is entitled to an
additional amount of Rs.3000/- per tree, i.e, total Rs.30,000/-.
54. Therefore, F.A.No.491 of 2025 is allowed by enhancing the
principal compensation by Rs.30,000/- only in respect of appellant Shivraj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM

21
Singh therein. On the said amount, he would be entitled to solatium,
interest and all other statutory benefits as per the order of the Reference
Court. It is made clear that for other brothers of Shivraj Singh, namely,
Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh, the appeal of NTPC stands
allowed and whatever amount they have taken by way of the agreements
Ex. D-1, D-2 and D-3 stands final and conclusive between these
landowners and NTPC and State Government.
55. In the above terms, F.A.No.1282 of 2025 is party allowed by
remanding the matter back to the Reference Court in terms stated above.
F.A.No.1284 of 2025 is allowed in respect of Respondents No.1, 2 and 4,
Arjun Singh, Ram Singh and Gulab Singh and dismissed in respect of
Respondent No.3 Shivraj Singh. F.A.No.491 of 2025 is party allowed by
enhancing the compensation payable to Shivraj Singh by Rs.30,000/-.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj/veni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/5/2026
2:05:02 PM