Krishi Upaj Mandi Smaiti Bhopal vs Atul Dharival

1 MA-5153-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 5137 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL
Versus
BILAS BUCHKE AND OTHERS
Appearance:

Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms. Kajal
Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 5132 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BHOPAL
Versus
SMT. MALTI MAROTHEE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5134 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

2 MA-5153-2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BHOPAL
Versus
MOH. AARIF AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5136 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL
Versus
HEMENDRA JAIN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5138 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL
Versus
SMT. HEMLATA SARVARIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

3 MA-5153-2024
None for the respondent No.1.

Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5140 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL
Versus
GULAB AHMED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5141 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL
Versus
SMT. MALA BANTHIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
None for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5149 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI BHOPAL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

4 MA-5153-2024
Versus
DR. M.L. JAIN AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5150 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BHOPAL
Versus
SARDAR SINGH S/O SHRI SARDAR DAYAL SINGH (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS SMT. SATNAM KOUR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
None for the respondent No.1.
Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
MISC. APPEAL No. 5153 of 2024
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SMAITI BHOPAL
Versus
ATUL DHARIVAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur-Senior Advocate with Ms.
Kajal Vishwakarma-Advocate for appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

5 MA-5153-2024
Ms. Aditi Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Ms Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on : 14.08.2026
Pronounced on : 01.09.2026
ORDER
Since all the above miscellaneous appeals arise out of the same
order and involve identical questions of fact and law, they are heard
together and are being decided by this common order.
2. The present appeals have been filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi
Samiti, Bhopal, against the orders dated 30.11.2018(Annexure A/1)
passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional
District Judge, Bhopal in Misc. Civil Case Nos. 447/2017, 441/2017,
472/2017, 445/2017, 443/2017, 442/2017, 448/2017, 424/2017,
425/2017 and Misc. Civil Case No.444/2017. By the said orders, the
application filed by the appellant under Order IX Rule 13 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), along with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was dismissed. The
appellant seeks setting aside of the said orders and, to allow the
applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC along
with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the sake
of convenience, the facts of M.A. No. 5137/2024 are being considered.
3. The dispute arises out of the acquisition of land situated at Gram
Nishatpura, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal, bearing Khasra Nos. 110/2,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

6 MA-5153-2024
110/3, 110/9, 110/5, 110/6, 110/10, 110/4, 110/11, 110/1 ad-measuring

13,939.20 sq. ft. and Khasra No.110/7 ad-measuring 13,503.60 sq. ft.,
The land was acquired by the State Government in Land Acquisition
Case No. 01/A-82/2001-02 for establishment of the new Krishi Upaj
Mandi, and the award was passed on 28.02.2004. Thereafter, the
claimants sought enhancement of compensation by invoking Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pursuant to which reference
proceedings were registered before the District Court.
4. According to the appellant, although the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
was directly affected by the enhancement of compensation, no notice
was served upon the Samiti in the reference proceedings. The appellant
contends that the Government Advocate who appeared in the
proceedings was representing the State of Madhya Pradesh and had not
been authorized by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. Despite this, the
Court below proceeded on the assumption that the Government
Advocate had also represented the appellant and that the appellant had
been given an opportunity to defend its case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant
first came to know about the reference proceedings and the award when
they received a notice in the execution proceedings on 22.06.2017.
Immediately thereafter, they contacted their counsel and obtained
information regarding the proceedings. They applied for a certified copy
of the award which was supplied to them. Thus, it is submitted that the
appellant had no knowledge of the reference proceedings or the award
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

7 MA-5153-2024
until they received the execution notice and that they acted promptly

thereafter. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the
first order-sheet dated 06.05.2008 in MJC No. 156/2008. According to
the appellant, after filing the application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, the Court directed the claimants/respondents to deposit
the requisite process fee, i.e., Talwana, within three days, after which
notice was to be issued to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The specific
case of the appellant is that the claimants did not deposit the requisite
process fee and, consequently, summons were never issued to the
appellant. Therefore, according to the appellant, they never received
effective notice of the proceedings and were deprived of an opportunity
to contest the claim. The relevant order-sheets and the award/reference
order have been filed as Annexure A/3. On this basis, the appellant
approached the Court below under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section
151 CPC, seeking setting aside of the ex parte award. The main ground
was that the award had been passed behind their back and without
giving them an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles
of natural justice.
6. The Court below, however, rejected the application. The appellant
has challenged the reasoning contained particularly in paragraph 9 of the
impugned order. The Court below noticed that the State of Madhya
Pradesh and the Bharsadhak Adhikari, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, had
been impleaded and that an Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Anand
Tiwari, had appeared on behalf of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. On that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

8 MA-5153-2024
basis, the Court below concluded that it could not be said that the

appellant had been denied an opportunity of hearing.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid finding
is not correct. It is submitted that the Bharsadhak Adhikari is not a
permanent office-holder of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti but is an
arrangement made by the State Government when the elected body is
not functioning. Therefore, it is contended that the appearance of such
an officer could not, by itself, amount to representation of the Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti. The appellant further submits that the Additional
Public Prosecutor represents the State Government and not the Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, which is a statutory body constituted under the
Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and has its own standing counsel.
According to the appellant, no Vakalatnama was executed by the Mandi
Samiti in favour of the Additional Public Prosecutor. Therefore, his
appearance could not legally be treated as an appearance on behalf of
the appellant. The present appeals are also stated to be maintainable in
view of the orders dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure A/4) passed in CR Nos.
27/2019, 29/2019, 23/2019, 30/2019, 32/2019, 26/2019, 28/2019,
24/2019, 25/2019 and CR No.33/2019. The appellant, therefore, pray for
setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.11.2018 (Annexure A/1) and
allow the applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of
CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/claimants have opposed the appeals and submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

9 MA-5153-2024
impugned orders are just and proper. It is submitted that the appellant

was duly represented and was given sufficient opportunity, in
accordance with law, to defend its case. It is, therefore, prayed that the
appeals filed by the appellant be dismissed and execution of the order
dated 30.11.2016 be proceeded with in accordance with law.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
perusal of the record, the short question for consideration is whether the
appellant, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, was duly served and was given an
effective opportunity to contest the reference proceedings in which the
compensation was enhanced and, consequently, whether the appellant is
entitled to relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
11. In the present case, the material placed on record by the appellant
includes the first order-sheet dated 06.05.2008 in MJC No. 156/2008.
The said order-sheet specifically records that the claimant was required
to furnish the requisite process fee and that, thereafter, notice was to be
issued to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The specific case of the
appellant is that the requisite process fee was not furnished and,
consequently, summons were never issued to it. Thus, if the order-sheet
placed on record is accepted, it prima facie appears that effective service
was never effected upon the appellant. Order IX Rule 13 CPC provides
a remedy for setting aside an ex parte decree where the defendant
satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served or that there
was sufficient cause for non-appearance. The basic requirement is that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

10 MA-5153-2024
the concerned party should have due notice of the proceedings and a

reasonable opportunity to defend its case.
12. The Court below appears to have mainly relied upon the fact that
the Additional Public Prosecutor had appeared and that the Bharsadhak
Adhikari of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti had been impleaded. In the
opinion of this Court, these facts alone are not sufficient to establish that
the appellant-Samiti was duly served and effectively represented. The
question was not merely whether a person connected with the State
Government or the Mandi Samiti was present in the proceedings. The
important question was whether the appellant-Samiti itself had been
duly served and represented by a counsel authorized by it. The appellant
has specifically stated that the Additional Public Prosecutor represented
the State Government and that the Mandi Samiti, being a separate
statutory body, had its own standing counsel and had not issued any
Vakalatnama in favour of the Additional Public Prosecutor. Unless
there is material on record showing that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
had authorized the Additional Public Prosecutor to represent it, his
appearance on behalf of the State Government cannot, merely on the
basis of an assumption, be treated as an appearance on behalf of the
Samiti. The Court below, therefore, ought to have examined the actual
record regarding service of notice and the authority of the counsel who
appeared for the appellant. Mere appearance of the Additional Public
Prosecutor could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof that the
appellant had been duly served and heard.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

11 MA-5153-2024
13. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned orders dated

30.11.2018 (Annexure A/1) cannot be sustained. The original record,
particularly the order-sheet dated 06.05.2008 relied upon by the
appellant, prima facie shows that notice to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
was contemplated but could not be issued for want of the requisite
process fee. Further, there is no sufficient material on record to establish
that the Samiti itself was duly served or that the Additional Public
Prosecutor was authorized by the Samiti to represent its independent
interest in the reference proceedings. In these circumstances, the
appellant-Samiti ought to be given an effective opportunity to contest
the proceedings in accordance with law.
14. Accordingly, M.A. No. 5137/2024, along with the connected
appeals, are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.11.2018
passed by the Fifth Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional
District Judge, Bhopal in Misc. Civil Case Nos. 447/2017, 441/2017,
472/2017, 445/2017, 443/2017, 442/2017, 448/2017, 424/2017,
425/2017 and Misc. Civil Case No.444/2017 are hereby set aside and
the applications filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC r/w Section 151 of
CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in
all the aforesaid appeals are hereby allowed. The matters are remanded
back to the competent Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with
law, after giving the appellant/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti a proper and
effective opportunity to file their defence and contest the reference
proceedings on merits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17

12 MA-5153-2024
15. All the aforesaid appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly.

16. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of connected appeals.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE
Rao

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 02-09-2026
18:16:17