The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ranubai
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
1 FA-1671-2025
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:
Rakesh Kesharwani Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Manoj Kumar Parashar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 1797 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOJ SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1798 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANOHAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
2 FA-1671-2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 1799 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHANKAR
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1800 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMESH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1801 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VIJAN
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1803 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KOKILA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1806 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
3 FA-1671-2025
Versus
NEELA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1807 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AMAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1809 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PARVAT SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1810 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BADRI SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1812 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
JAGGANNATH SINGH
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
4 FA-1671-2025
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1813 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
MANGYA
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2203 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHEELU BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2204 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PRAHLAD SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2205 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DHYANA
Appearance:
Shri
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
5 FA-1671-2025
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2224 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI SHER SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2225 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI MANTAGYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2226 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI SURESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2227 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KAMAL SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2228 of 2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
6 FA-1671-2025
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI THAKUR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2229 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI PIRTHE SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2230 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
TANTU
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
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
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2233 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
7 FA-1671-2025
CHHOGALAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS SEVANTI BAI
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2234 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. DEVKI BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2236 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI DILAWAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
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
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2238 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
GABARU (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS SMT. MUKTI BAI AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
8 FA-1671-2025
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2241 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NATTHU SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2242 of 2024
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMCHANDRA
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2243 of 2024
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
AMIT SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
9 FA-1671-2025
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2245 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI VIKRAM SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 2247 of 2024
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
TARU SINGH
Appearance:
Shri
Shri
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
Shri
FIRST APPEAL No. 1671 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RANUBAI
Appearance:
Shri
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
10 FA-1671-2025
Shri
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
apart from 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 acquirement.
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 but to the extent of standing trees and irrigation infrastructure on
the lands, the Collector had not awarded any compensation which has 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 guideline value of the year 2017 -18 issued by the State
Government as Circle/Guideline Rates.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
11 FA-1671-2025
4. Therefore, the facts of the case are not at all in dispute that is 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
to be separately made and 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
education 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, 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 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 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 irrigation infrastructure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
12 FA-1671-2025
on these acquired lands.
7. It is argued that the the Reference Court has erred in considering the
said order of the irrigation Department and the Reference Court has awarded
compensation to the land loser in by not considering 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
13 FA-1671-2025
is neither a part of the record as exhibited document and not even as
unexhibited 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 1ज C< म ' न केवल भूिम का मू 4य
शािमल होता है वरन् भूिम पर उपल 9ध प (रस)प*य+ का मू 4य भी शािमल होता है।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
14 FA-1671-2025
, ,
इसी कारण भूिम पर उपल 9ध Fयूबवेल कुए वृ : आ द क 3 पृथक से र 1ज C< 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 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 1 थित
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 Bयव था त Mकाल भाव से
ब =द करने का क K कर ' ।
( )
राधे Qयाम जुलािनया
अपर
मु Rय सिचव
जल
संसाधन वभाग
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
15 FA-1671-2025
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 the land is
sold by separating these infrastructures and trees from the land, 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 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 totally 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.
14. The record of the Reference Court has been produced before this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
16 FA-1671-2025
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
detail 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.
15. The guideline rates are also on record as Ex.A-7 as per which all
the timber bearing tree of teak in case of circumstance more than 45cm,
compensated value would be Rs.50,000/- and for other timber bearing trees
like Saal, Shisham, Saja, etc., the value would be Rs.30,000/- and 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/-.
16. 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.
17. 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 who must have invested something for construction of well,
excavation of Tube-well, providing pipelines, motors, electricity
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
17 FA-1671-2025
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.
18. 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 while in case of unirrigated land,
he 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.
19. 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.
20. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM
18 FA-1671-2025
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RB 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 principle amount of compensation and
not by including the amount of 12% as per section 30 (e) to the principal
amount.
21. In the above terms, with the aforesaid observation the appeals fail
and are dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 8/5/2026
10:38:13 AM