Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rail Vikas Nigam Limited vs Koshiya Bai Since Dead Through His Lrs … on 23 July, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J AB AL P UR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
FIRST APPEAL No. 834 of 2022
RAIL VIKASH NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
NARMADA PRASAD AND OTHERS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 634 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHRI RAM AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 635 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SATYENDRA PAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 636 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DHARAMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 637 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NIRMALA BAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 638 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
NARMADA PRASAD AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 811 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJU @ RAJESH PAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 822 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
2
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VARDHMAN FEBRIC (A.UNIT OF VARDHMAN TAXTILES LIMITED)
GRAM PILIKARAN TAALPURA REHTI ROAD TEHSIL BUDH AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 824 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VARDHMAN FEBRICS (A UNIT OF VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED)
AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 830 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
VARDHMAN FABRICS (A UNIT OF VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD. AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 831 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
RAIS KHAN AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 836 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
NIRMALA BAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 838 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
RAJU @ RAJESH PAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 839 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
VARDHMAN FABRICS (A UNIT OF VARDHMAN TAXTILES LTD.) AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 840 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
3
SHRI RAM AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 842 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
MAKHAN SINCE DEAD THROUGH LRS. DILIP PANWAR AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 844 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
WAHID KHAN AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 851 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
SATYENDRA PAL SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 855 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
DHARAMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 857 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
VARDHMAN FABRICS (A UNIT OF VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.) AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 858 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
VARDHMAN FABRICS (A UNIT OF VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.) AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1286 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KOUSHLYA (DIED) THROUGH LRS SUSHILA BAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1287 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
4
Versus
DHARAMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1289 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SATYENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1292 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BHAGWATIBAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1293 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
CHAMPALAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1294 of 2022
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
KISHORILAL (DIED) THROUGH HARIBAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1305 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
SATYENDRA PAL SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1306 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
DHARAMPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1330 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
BHAGWATI BAI AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1331 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
5
KOSHIYA BAI SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS SUSHILA BAI AND
OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1332 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED
Versus
CHAMPALAL AND OTHERS
FIRST APPEAL No. 1333 of 2022
RAIL VIKAS VIGAM LIMITED
Versus
KISHORILAL S/O HALKE SINCE DEAD THROUGH LRS HARI BAI AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anshuman Swamy - Government Advocate for the appellant/State in the
respective cases.
Shri Brijesh Shukla - Senior Advocate with Shri Satyam Agrawal and Shri
Aaryan Shukla - Advocates for the respondent/Rail Vikas Nigam Limited,
Bhopal in the respective cases.
Shri Ajay Mishra - Senior Advocate with Shri Gaurav Tiwari and Ms. Namrata
Purohit - Advocates for the respondent in the respective cases.
Shri Ravi Shankar Yadav and Shri Dharmendra Singh Sisodia - Advocates for
the respondent in the respective cases.
JUDGMENT
(Reserved on :23.06.2026)
(Pronounced on :23.07.2026)
This batch of matters arises out of and against the awards passed by the
Reference Court in favour of the land losers, whereby enhancing the
compensation awarded to the land losers for the project of acquisition of land
for construction of “Third Railway line between Barkheda to Budhani in Sehore
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
6
District of Madhya Pradesh”. These appeals relate to land acquired in three
villages namely Mana, Talpura and Bansapur.
2. These appeals are filed by the State as well as the Rail Vikas Nigam
Limited being the acquiring agency and the requiring/beneficiary agency of the
lands in question respectively. The appeals can be grouped into three groups,
firstly, the agricultural lands acquired in village Talpura, the second being the
lands acquired in village Mana and thirdly for the lands acquired, which were
diverted lands and situated in villages Mana, Bansapur and Talpura.
3. For the sake of convenience, the details of bifurcation of the appeals
into groups is as under:-
Filed by RVNL Filed by State Village
- Non-Diverted -
FA No.855/2022 FA No.636/2022 Mana
FA No.1305/2022 FA No.1289/2022 Mana
FA No.1306/2022 FA No.1287/2022 Mana
FA No.851/2022 FA No.635/2022 Mana
FA No.831/2022 -- Talpura
FA No.834/2022 FA No.638/2022 Talpura
FA No.836/2022 FA No.637/2022 Talpura
FA No.838/2022 FA No.811/2022 Talpura
FA No.842/2022 -- Talpura
FA No.844/2022 -- Talpura
FA No.1330/2022 FA No.1292/2022 Talpura
FA No.1331/2022 FA No.1286/2022 Talpura
FA No.1332/2022 FA No.1293/2022 Talpura
FA No.1333/2022 FA No.1294/2022 Talpura
FA No.840/2022 FA No.634/2022 Talpura
- DIVERTED -
FA No.858/2022 FA No.824/2022 Mana
FA No.857/2022 FA No.839/2022 Bansapur
FA No.830/2022 FA No.822/2022 Talpura
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
7
4. Learned counsel for the appellant RVNL as well as by the State has
vehemently argued that in all these cases the compensation has been grossly and
disproportionately enhanced by the Reference Court without any just cause and
the Reference Court has in fact gone beyond its jurisdiction and made
inappropriately exorbitant enhancement of compensation, which cannot be
justified by the true interpretation of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short ‘Act of 2013’).
5. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that
there are certain basic principles governing determination and enhancement of
compensation, which have not been followed by the Reference Court while
granting enhancement of compensation. It is argued that the determination as
per Section 26 of Act of 2013 has two modalities, i.e. as per Section 26(a),
which is the valuation for registration of sale deeds or agreements in the area
where the land is situated or (b) the average price of sale for similar type of land
situated in nearest village or nearest vicinity area. The third (c) being the
consented amount of compensation, which is not applicable in the present case,
because there was no agreed or consented quantum of compensation in the
present case between the land losers and Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. (‘RVNL’ for
short), or even the State.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the present
matters in most of the cases either the lands in different villages have been taken
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
8
into consideration or the lands situated not in near vicinity, but as much as 4 to
5 kilometers away have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court
without any just reason. It is argued that in various cases, the exemplar lands,
which were cited before the Reference Court and which have been believed and
relied by the Reference Court were situated 3 to 4 or even 5 kilometers away
from the acquired land and had a totally different position, location and
situation from the acquired land. It is argued that in various cases the exemplar
lands were situated adjacent to the P.M. Grameen Sadak or the State or National
Highways, but the acquired lands were not so situated adjacent to the highways
or rural roads, but are situated adjacent to other lands and are at much distance
may be half kilometer to even 2 kilometers from the rural roads or State or
National Highways, despite which the Reference Court has blindly accepted the
assertion of the land losers and relied on exemplar lands despite there being a
difference in location, situation and position of the exemplar lands from the
acquired lands.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the RVNL has also argued that the
exemplar lands being situated away from the acquired lands and in not situated
on State or National Highway or on rural roads is duly established by various
maps that have now been filed along with the present appeal by RVNL, because
the RVNL in many of the cases before the Reference Court was ex-parte,
though it is admitted that in some of the cases the RVNL had duly been
represented before the Reference Court and had even led evidence before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
9
Reference Court. It is argued that the maps which have been filed along with the
present appeals if seen in their true perspective, would indicate that the
exemplar lands are at much distance from the acquired lands and there is no
parity or comparison in valuation of exemplar lands with the acquired lands
despite which the Reference Court has accepted the valuation of exemplar lands
and put it in effect for the purpose of determination of valuation of acquired
lands. It is argued that such a course of action adopted by the Reference Court is
utterly contrary to law and the Reference Court was expected to act in
consonance with law, which it had failed to do. It is, therefore, argued that the
orders/awards to the Reference Court in question being contrary to law have to
be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant while making such vehement
assertions has heavily relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Gafar and others vs. Moradabad Development Authority, 2007 AIRSCW
5372 to contend that the exemplar land should be in vicinity and if the
assessment has been made on guess work without adhering to the comparable
facts to compare the sale deeds relied by the land losers, such sale deeds cannot
be relied.
9. Learned counsel further refers to Bhule Ram vs Union of India AIR
2014 SC 1957and submits that the claimants are required to provide evidence to
support their valuations and guesswork should not be done. Due consideration
should be made on geographical location and factors like proximity to highway.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
10
In the said case, comparison was made between lands in developed areas and
adjacent to highways with the lands in interior places, which were as much as 6
km away from the ring road and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex court dismissed
the appeal of the land loser.
10. Further reliance is placed on Union of India vs. Mangat (dead) by
LRs & others AIR 2000 SC 3527to contend that a land adjacent to major road
holds greater value than land farther away and applying a uniform price
regarding these essential distinctions vitiates the award/order of the Reference
Court.
11. Reliance was also placed on Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi and
others vs. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1996 SC
3222to contend that potential future use should not influence compensation and
the use which the land is being put on the date of acquisition has to be seen and
any future appreciation in land value as a consequence of acquisition of land
should not be taken into consideration. The only consideration should be the
value and potential future use as available on the date of notification, not
thereafter.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on Kanwar Singh and others
vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 317to contend that reliance on valuation of
adjacent village would lead to absurd consequences, because each village
adjoins some of the other village in this manner a village in interior part of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
11
country by taking adjoining villages as equals may even be treated to be equal
to Delhi.
13. While placing reliance on Civil Appeal No.5095 of 2025 (Sumitraben
Singabhai Gamit vs. State of Gujrat & others) passed by the Supreme Court, it
is contended that valuation of the land should be seen on the date of Notification
under Section 11 of Act of 2013, and not thereafter.
14. While placing reliance on Civil Appeal No.3998 of 2024 (M.P. Road
Development Corporation vs. Vincent Daniel and others) passed by the
Supreme Court, it is argued that once there are no exemplars in the vicinity,
then Section 26(b) would not have any application and Section 26(a) would
have application and the valuation for registration of sale deeds as per the Indian
Stamp Act, which has been laid down for the area by officials of concerned
stamp department/stamp authority has to be taken to be value for the purpose of
determination of compensation.
15. On these grounds, it is stated that the awards passed by the Reference
Court have been passed in a manner erroneously inflating the quantum of
compensation to a higher side, which should not be given stamp of approval by
this Court. It is argued that in some of the cases the enhancement is very much
exorbitant and the enhancement goes even up to 6 to 7 times of the
compensation assessed by the Collector at the time of acquisition of the land.
Therefore, it is argued that the very fact that there has been enhancement by as
much as 3 times to as much as 6 to 7 times of the assessment by the Collector
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
12
itself shows the arbitrary manner in which the Reference Court has enhanced
the compensation and therefore, this Court should step in and rectify the
illegality committed by the Reference Court by exercising its appellate
jurisdiction under Act of 2013.
16. The factual contentions on different villages and types of lands would
be dealt with while making consideration on different cases in later part of this
judgment and therefore, the arguments as to individual case are not being
reproduced in this part of the judgment.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent land losers has argued
that the award passed by the Reference Court is fully justified so far as village
Talpura is concerned. The lands in vicinity have been taken care of by the
Reference Court and there is no illegality in that the other village that has been
taken into consideration is another village of the same Gram Panchayat and is
not a far away village. It is argued that in fact one of the sale deed was at
somewhat lower side while the other sale deed was at some higher side, but the
Reference Court has taken the average value of both the sale deeds. The sale
deed which was at higher side was not adjacent to any village road or National
or State Highway and therefore, it cannot be argued by the RVNL or the State
that examplar lands that have been cited are adjacent to State or National
Highway or village road. It is argued that the lands are in close vicinity of
Budhni town and in fact two of the three villages i.e. Mana and Bansapur fall
within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Budhani and therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
13
insistence of the railways to pay compensation to such land losers as per the
rates of un-irrigated agricultural lands belies all common sense and for lands in
urban areas such compensation could not have been awarded by treating the
lands to be un-irrigated agricultural lands because on the date of Notification
under Section 11 the lands had already been made a part of Municipal Council
area Budhni, which is a large Tahsil of District Sehore, about 50-60 km. from
State capital City of Bhopal and therefore, the valuation arrived at by the
Reference Court is fully proper.
18. It is contended that some of the lands are industrial lands and are
diverted lands and for those lands the compensation has been rightly granted to
Vardhman Fabrics Limited, which was using the lands acquired from the said
industrial unit for industrial purposes and purposes ancillary to its main plant.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vardhman Fabrics Limited argued that
the assessment of land made for grant of compensation to Vardhman Fabrics
has been properly made, because it was a diverted industrial land and for such
diverted industrial land on which ancillary processes to the industrial unit of
Vardhman Fabrics were being run, could not be compensated at circle/guideline
rates for un-irrigated agricultural lands. While placing reliance on evidence
adduced before the Reference Court, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Vardhman Fabrics Limited has supported the impugned awards to the extent of
Vardhman Fabrics Limited. So far as agricultural lands in village Mana are
concerned there are cross objections in these appeals filed by the land losers,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
14
who are seeking enhancement of compensation on the grounds that the
compensation assessed is at lower side and should be enhanced. It is argued by
counsel for the land losers for village Mana that applications for diversion of the
land to industrial use had already been filed and these land losers were
intending to establish industrial units on the land in question and therefore,
compensation should have been granted to them at higher rates and not on the
rates on which they have been paid.
19. The aforesaid was vehemently objected by learned counsel for the
State and by the RVNL by arguing that the lands in the cases in which cross
objections have been filed had not yet been diverted and therefore, though
diversion applications may be pending, but in absence of real diversion taking
place and industrial unit to be set up on these lands the land losers cannot seek
compensation on the basis of valuation of diverted lands. On these assertions, it
is prayed to reject the cross objections.
20. Counsel for the respondents land losers have further argued that the
maps filed along with the present appeals are not certified by any revenue
authority and have been prepared only by the railway authorities. It is further
argued that these maps filed along with these appeals by RVNL do not contain
any scale of distance so as to arrive at inference of a particular figure of distance
of two lands. In absence of scale, the distance of even 100 meter can be
amplified to appear as large distance, once no scale is shown on the map.
Nothing can be argued on the basis of such maps by the RVNL. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
15
pointed out that in various cases, RVNL was not ex-parte before the Reference
Court and it had indeed filed such maps before the Reference Court, which have
duly been considered by the Reference Court and discarded.
21. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
22. In the present batch of appeals, one of the questions that has been
posed before this Court is that whether reliance on Section 26(b) has rightly
been made by the Reference Court by deviating from the circles/guideline
approved by the relevant stamp authority for the area in question and
proceeding to direct payment of compensation on the basis of average sale price
for similar type of land situated in nearest village or nearest vicinity area. As per
Section 26 the following has been provided:-
“26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.-(1)
The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and
determining the market value of the land, namely:–
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or
agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the
land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land
situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon
under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of
lands for private companies or for public private partnership
projects, whichever is higher:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
16
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall
be the date on which the notification has been issued under section
11.
Explanation 1.–The average sale price referred to in clause
(b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the
agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near
village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three
years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to
be made.
Explanation 2.–For determining the average sale price
referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale
deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has
been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.–While determining the market value under
this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1
or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land
acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in
the district shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4.–While determining the market value under
this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1
or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the
Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be
discounted for the purposes of calculating market value”
23. As per the aforesaid Section 26, the Collector shall adopt the
valuation as per Section 26 (a), (b) or (c) not in that order, but whichever is
highest. Therefore, if the valuation of exemplar sale deeds is higher than the
valuation of guidelines/circle rates, then that higher valuation has to be given
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
17
effect by the Collector and once the Collector fails in its duty to do so, then the
Reference Court can step in and pass appropriate order by exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 64 of Act of 2013. In the case of Vincent Daniel
(supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :-
“18. Section 26 deals with the determination of the market value of
the land by the Collector. Sub-section (1) to Section 26 consists of
three Clauses, (a), (b) and (c), each prescribing a criterion or
standard for assessing the market value. Clause (a) prescribes the
consideration of the market value specified in the Stamp Act for the
registration of agreements/sale deeds in the area where the
concerned land is situated.
19. Clause (b) to Section 26(1) requires the Collector to consider
the average sale price for similar types of land situated in the
nearest village or the nearest vicinity. This test of average sale
price is similar to the exemplar test which is adopted and applied
in cases of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but
with modifications in terms of Explanations 1 to 4. Computation
under Clause (b) is in relative terms. Therefore, while drawing a
comparison with the average price of the other lands under Clause
(b), the Collector must consider all such factors that have been
held to be relevant for accurate valuation by this Court. These
include the theory of deduction, the principle of belting, and
accounting for other advantages or disadvantages of the acquired
land, in comparison to the lands existing in the same vicinity.
20. Clause (c) to Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013
requires the Collector to take into consideration the amount of
compensation agreed upon by the parties under Section 2(2) of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
18Acquisition Act, 2013 in cases involving the acquisition of land for
private companies or public-private partnership projects. These
agreements are entered into voluntarily, based upon consent terms,
and reflect the market value as settled inter se the parties.
21. It is important to note that the values computed in terms of
Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act,
2013 are not to be averaged. The highest of the values as
determined by Clauses (a), (b) and (c), is to be treated as the
market value under Section 26(1) of the Acquisition Act, 2013.”
24. To get over the aforesaid legal position, the Senior Counsel for RVNL
had vehemently argued that the exemplar sale deeds are not of the lands situated
in the nearest village or in the nearest vicinity area and despite the lands not
being situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area, the Reference Court
has erred in accepting the valuation contained in the said so-called exemplar
sale deeds.
25. The legal position that the exemplar sale deeds have to be for the
same vicinity of the area or of the nearest village having the similar type of
circumstances is not at all in dispute and therefore, to appreciate the contentions
of learned counsel for the appellant State and RVNL, this Court may be
required to consider the individual cases and whether the Reference Court has
properly considered the exemplar sale deeds to the six sale deeds, which should
be relied as per Section 26(b) of Act of 2013 or should not have been so relied
by the Reference Court.
26. Therefore, this Court takes up the appeals group wise.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
19
Agricultural lands in village Talpura:-
27. In the land situated in village Talpura, the Collector has assessed the
land at two different rates, i.e. agricultural and non-agricultural whereas the
Reference Court has assessed the lands by taking the average of two sale deeds
found acceptable by the Reference Court to be relied as exemplar sale deeds, or
in some cases the Reference Court has accepted the lower of the two sale deeds
where the higher sale deed had not been placed before the Reference Court. In
all the matters relating to village Talpura, it is seen that there are various
exemplar sale deeds, which were relied by the land losers, but ultimately the
Reference Court has relied on two exemplar sale deeds. For consideration of
such documents, the Reference Court record of F.A. No.67 of 2022 is being
taken for consideration for village Talpura.
28. One of the two exemplar sale deeds is Exhibit P-3C as per which one
Rajesh Yadav has sold the land to Jyoti Society, which is total area 0.315
hectare for value of Rs.39.50 lakhs and the date of sale deed is 16.10.2017
whereas the date of Section 11 Notification is 19.01.2018 and the proposal for
acquisition of land by RVNL is stated to be 13.11.2017. As per the sale deed,
the valuation of land comes to Rs.65.18 lakh per hectare.
29. By the other sale deed Exhibit P-4, which is executed by one Mangali
Prasad Sharma in favour of Vardhman Textiles Ltd., which is dated 30.06.2017,
land area 0.571 hectare has been sold for consideration of Rs.42.30 lakh, which
comes to Rs.74.08 lakh per hectare. The Reference Court in all the case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
20
srelating to village Talpura has either taken the average of the two sale deeds,
i.e. Rs.69.63 lakh per hectare or where the higher one was not filed,has taken
the lower one, i.e. Rs.65.18 lakh per hectare.
30. Upon perusal of the sale deed Exhibit P-3, it is seen that this sale deed
relates to village Talpura, but indeed this is a land, which is adjacent to Pradhan
Mantri Rural Road. As per this sale deed as already mentioned above, price is
Rs.65.18 lakh per hectare.
31. However, the other sale deed Exhibit P-4 is the sale deed executed by
one Mangali Prasad Sharma in favour of Vardhman Textiles Ltd. and this sale
deed is for village Khapakhurd, which is in the same Gram Panchayat area
Pilikarar. It has come on record that village Talpura and Khapakhurd, both are
within the same Gram Panchayat. This land is not a land adjacent to any road,
rural, State or National Highway. It is surrounded on all sides by roads of
different agriculturists or other persons and the valuation mentioned in this sale
deed is Rs.74.08 lakh per hectare.
32. The Railways in some of these cases by filing application under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC has relied on another sale deed and the same sale deed is on
record in some cases before the Reference Court itself, as Exhibit D-2. This
Court has gone through the aforesaid sale deed, which is relied by the Railways
as Exhibit D-2 and by the said sale deed dated 18.03.2017, one Ram Mohan
Yadav has sold 1.012 hectare land to one Dinesh Yadav, and the sale
consideration shown is Rs.7.50 lakh. However, this sale deed cannot be cited as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
21
a exemplar sale deed, because this is a sale between father and son as Dinesh
Yadav – purchaser is the son of vendor-Ram Mohan Yadav.The sale transaction
taking place between father and son may be by way of family arrangement or
settlement, or whatever understanding that might have been between the
members of the family and it cannot be cited as an example to assess
compensation for other lands. Even otherwise, this sale deed itself indicates on
its front page that even the Registrar has assessed the value of land as Rs.25.86
lakh per hectare, though the sale deed mentions the consideration paid to be
Rs.7.50 lakh. It is evident that this sale deed is only around 25% of the
guideline/circle value and it is some arrangement between members of the same
family i.e., father and son and by no stretch of imagination, it can be cited as an
exemplar sale deed to assess the compensation for land losers. Therefore, the
Reference Court has rightly discarded this sale deed Exhibit D-2 executed
between father and son, which has been relied in all these cases relating to
village Talpura either before the Reference Court or wherever RVNL was ex-
parte before the Reference Court, then by filing before this Court along with
application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Such sale deed has rightly been
discarded by the Reference Court.
33. This Court has also examined the maps filed with the present appeals.
In some cases where RVNL was not proceeded ex-parte, such maps were filed
by RVNL before the Reference Court itself. These maps do not contain any
scale from which the distance between two land parcels can be inferred. Further,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
22
none of these maps shows the land covered by sale deed Exhibit P-4, which
appears to have been omitted to conceal the fact that the land under that
exemplar sale deed is also not adjacent to any State or National Highway or
rural road.
34. Both the exemplar sale deeds belonged to date prior to the date of
issuance of notification under Section 11 of Act of 2013 and no error can be
found in the action of the Reference Court in relying the said sale deed and in
fact arriving at average valuation of both these sale deeds in most of these cases.
35. Therefore, this Court does not find any error of law or jurisdiction in
the orders of the Reference Court so far as agricultural lands in village Talpura
are concerned. This Court has even appreciated the evidence independently in
all those cases and even after independent assessment of evidence, this Court
has arrived at a conclusion that in view of the evidence available on record, the
findings so far as village Talpura are concerned are duly in accordance with
law.
36. Even the maps that have been filed along with these appeals cannot be
relied to reduce the compensation assessed by the Reference Court. These maps
do not indicate any scale and even these maps do not indicate existing facilities
that increase the value of land by marking existing Railway Stations, bus stops,
commercial constructions, public facilities, residential colonies, etc. Even the
Railway line and Railway Stations are not indicated in these maps, though the
acquisition is for construction of third Railway line. Therefore, nothing turns in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
23
favour of RVNL or State in terms of these maps, that seem to have been
prepared only to oppose payment of fair compensation.
37. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned award
passed in the matter of agricultural lands in village Talpura and accordingly
First Appeal Nos.FA No.831/2022, FA No.834/2022, FA No.638/2022, FA
No.836/2022, FA No.637/2022, FA No.838/2022, FA No.811/2022, FA
No.842/2022, FA No.844/2022, FA No.1330/2022, FA No.1292/2022, FA
No.1331/2022, FA No.1286/2022, FA No.1332/2022, FA No.1293/2022, FA
No.1333/2022, FA No.1294/2022, FA No.840/2022, FA No.634/2022, FA
No.838/2022 &FA No.811/2022 are dismissed and the award passed by the
Reference Court in all these appears is affirmed.
Lands Situated in village Mana:-
38. The lands situated in village Mana are all undiverted lands and the
compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer to the extent of
Rs.42.35 Lakh per hectare which has now been enhanced by the Reference
Court to Rs.2.81 Crore per hectare which is stated to be increased by as much as
6.6 times per hectare.
39. On one hand, the State and RVNL have challenged the award passed
by the Reference Court on the ground that enhancement has been made at
exorbitant quantum of compensation but on the other hand, the land losers have
filed cross-objections in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
24
awarded by the Reference Court and have sought the valuation to be fixed at
Rs.3.25 crores.
40. The village Mana is undisputedly within the limits of Municipal area
Budhni, District Sehore. This position is undisputed between the parties that out
of the three villages of which the lands have been acquired and are subject
matter of these appeals, two villages are in the urban area of Municipal Council
Budhni, District Sehore. The Collector had assessed the compensation as per the
guideline/circle rates prevailing for agricultural land which was objected to by
the land losers by initiating reference and now the Reference Court has assessed
the compensation to the tune of Rs.2.81 crore per hectare by enhancing from
Rs.42.35 lakh per hectare, that was awarded by the Collector. The assessment
by the Collector was as per the guidelines/ circle rates for irrigated agricultural
land of the village in question.
41. The Reference Court has relied on two sale deeds Exhibit P-7 and P-8
to arrive at a particular quantum of compensation. This Court has gone through
the said two sale deeds. Before going to the sale deeds, some dates are relevant.
The proposal for acquisition of land by RVNL is dated 25.01.2019 and the date
of notification under Section 11 is 18.07.2019. Award has been passed on
24.09.2019, whereas sale deed Exhibit P-7, which is part of record in
FA.1306/2022, is dated 08.03.2016 and the sale deed Exhibit P-8 is dated
17.06..2015 and as such both these sale deeds are well prior in time to the
initiation of acquisition. Sale deed Exhibit P-7 is for agricultural land in Budhni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
25
town and same is the position for the sale deed Exhibit P-8 which is also sale of
agricultural land in Budhni town. It cannot be denied that value of agricultural
land in a village which has potential only for the purpose of agriculture, is
different whereas the valuation of agricultural land which is within urban area
and within part of Municipal area, its potential is different, even though it may
not be diverted as yet. By the very fact of the land being a part of Municipal
area, that too of a large Tehsil like Budhni, the valuation of land cannot
mechanically be assessed to be valuation as agricultural land and once it
becomes part of the Municipal area, then its valuation must be assessed
accordingly.
42. So far as the assessment by the Reference Court is concerned, the
land which has been sold by the exemplar sale deeds Exhibit P-7 and P-8 is also
undiverted land situated within Municipal area Budhni and same is the position
of the exemplar sale deeds. Though the land in sale deed Exhibit P-7 is adjacent
to National Highway and the land in sale deed Exhibit P-8 is adjacent to Budhni
– Raheti Main Road, but the Reference Court has assigned cogent reasons for
accepting the sale deeds as exemplar sale deeds for the land in question.
43. The Reference Court has considered the deposition of the Patwari as
DW-1. In para-8 of his deposition, the Patwari Sanjay Kumar Saxena (DW-1)
states that Budhni Municipal Council has 15 Wards and Ward No.13 is Mana
Ward. He admitted that within 500 meters from the acquired land, there is a
sports stadium, Government PG College, Government ITI and a Government
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
26
colony having 500 residential houses. He further admits that one paper mill and
railway sleeper factory is in Mana including two saw-mills and nearby is the
industrial unit of Vardhman Textiles. This evidence has been recorded in
respect of land loser Dharampal Singh relating to FA No.1306/2022 and FA
No.1287/2022.
44. So far as same land loser Dharampal Singh is concerned in FA
No.636/2022 and FA No.855/2022,it has come on record that this land is nearby
to the other land of the same land loser which is subject matter of FA
No.1306/2022 and therefore this land also being part of the urban area, the
Reference Court has held the same valuation of the land to be acceptable for this
land also.
45. So far as the methodology of valuation on the basis of Exhibit P-7 and
P-8 is concerned, it has come on record that the land is near Government PG
College, Government ITI, near the colony of 500 Government quarters and near
Vardhman Textile Mill. The Reference Court has held that there are two sale
deeds Exhibit P-7 and P-8 which have been relied by the land loser and the
average of sale consideration of the two sale deeds would be Rs.2.81 Crore.
This Court does not find any error in the aforesaid logic and reasoning adopted
by the Reference Court in assessing the valuation of land in Village Mana in
respect of land loser Dharampal Singh and therefore FA Nos.1305/2022,
1306/2022 filed by RVNL and FA 1289/2022 and 1287/2022 filed by the State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
27
Government are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the land loser are also
rejected.
46. Now so far as the remaining two lands in respect of village Mana are
concerned, the same are subject matters of four appeals because appeals have
been filed by the Railways as well as by the State. The Reference Court has held
that Mana being an area within Municipal limits of Budhni and it having
various urban facilities like PG College, ITI, 500 quarters of Government
colony and in the vicinity there is Vardhman Textile Mill. Therefore, for the
other lands also situated in Ward number 13 of urban area Budhni, the same
valuation of Rs.2.81 crore per hectare should be adopted. This Court does not
find any error of law or jurisdiction in the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the
Reference Court and therefore FA No.855/2022, 636/2022, 851/2022 and
635/2022 are also rejected and cross objections also of the land loser also stand
rejected and all the appeals relating to agricultural lands of village Mana also
the awards of the Reference Court are affirmed.
47. In the cross-objections, the counsel for the land losers has vehemently
relied on certain applications filed before the Industries Department for grant of
permission to start a rice-milling unit on the land in question which was
submitted sometime in the year 2015 and also an application for diversion of
land in question to non-agricultural purpose.
48. The aforesaid application would not turn anything in favour of the
land losers and their cross-objections because undisputedly the diversion never
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
28
took place and the industrial unit was never established prior to acquisition of
land. Therefore, for this also the cross-objections deserve no consideration.
Diverted Lands:-
49. Now coming to the diverted lands, the diverted lands are subject
matter of FA.858/2022 and FA.824/2022 for diverted lands in village Mana,
FA.857/2022 and FA.839/2022for diverted lands in village Bansapur and
FA.830/2022 and FA.822/2022 for diverted lands in village Talpura.
50. All these appeals are filed against Vardhman Fabrics Limited who
was having industrial unit on the acquired land and the land of the industrial
unit fell in three different villages namely Mana, Bansapur and Talpura.
51. So far as FA. 857/2022 and FA.839/2022 are concerned, which relate
to village Bansapur, the Reference Court has assessed the value of land at the
rate of Rs.3.09 Crore per hectare. The Reference Court has held that the lands
are located in village Bansapur; and village Bansapur and village Mana both are
within the urban area of Budhni town being situated within the area of
Municipal Council, Budhni. The Reference Court has held that once for the
lands in village Mana the value of land has been assessed at Rs.2.81 Crores and
village Bansapur which is also in the same urban area and is having better
location as it is adjacent to the National Highway then the valuation of lands in
village Bansapur cannot be assessed at lesser value and therefore, the valuation
of land was assessed at Rs.2.81 crore and the lands being diverted lands, granted
increment of 10% on such value.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
29
52. This Court does not find any error in the aforesaid logic and
justification adopted by the Reference Court in arriving at the said valuation of
land. The lands have been found to be diverted lands and being used for the
purpose of industry or for ancillary processes connected to the industry as held
by the Reference Court and owned by the industrial unit. Therefore this Court
does not find any error in the award of the Reference Court relating to village
Bansapur, which is the subject matter of FA No.857/2022 and FA 839/2022.
53. So far as FA. 858/2022 and FA 824/2022 are concerned, these
appeals relate to diverted lands in village Mana. It has been held by the
Reference Court that for the non-diverted land in village Mana in other cases
valuation of Rs.2.81 crore per hectare has been assessed and this land being
diverted land and being used for industry or processes ancillary to the running
of industry and owned by industrial unit, therefore on account of land being
diverted an increment of 10% has been granted which also is not found to be
arbitrary or illegal and is duly supported by the evidence on record and therefore
FA Nos. 858/2022 and 824/2022 are also dismissed.
54. So far as FA.830/2022 and FA.822/2022 are concerned, in these cases
it has been held by the Reference Court that the lands in village Talpura have
already been assessed to the value of Rs.65.18 lakh per hectare and these lands
being owned by industrial unit and being used for industry or purposes ancillary
with running of the industry and diverted for non-agricultural purposes, the land
loser is entitled to 10% increment on the value. This Court does not find any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
30
error of law, jurisdiction or facts in the aforesaid order passed by the Reference
Court and therefore, these appeals are also dismissed.
55. In the above terms, all these appeals are dismissed and the cross-
objections filed by the land losers are also dismissed.
56. Before parting with the matter, the objection of the RVNL and State
Government in employing the factor of 2.0 for the lands found to be situated in
rural area has been assailed, is to be dealt with. It is contended that the State
Government has not issued any notification in terms of Section 30(2) of the Act
of 2013 and therefore the acquisition having been carried out by the State
though for the purpose of Railways, the factor of 1.0 would be applicable even
for the rural areas.
57. It is seen that the Government of India has issued notification for
acquisitions in rural areas by notifying factor of 2.0 in terms of Section 30(2) of
Act of 2013 by exercising powers conferred by column-3 of serial No.2 of
Schedule 1 of the said Act.
58. The acquisition in the present case is though made by the State
Government, but it is made for the purpose of Railways which is a Department
of the Government of India.
59. This issue has already been considered by a Single Bench as well as a
Division Bench of this Court. The matter concerning Railways was considered
by Single Bench of this Court in Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
31
Sajruddin Ali and Others [FA. No.1373 of 2023]. The Coordinate Bench has
held as under:-
“This appeal, under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (for short “Act of 2013”), has been filed against the Award dated
31.03.2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Sheopur (M.P.) in Land
Acquisition Case No. MJC/37/2022.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in short, are that certain
lands have been acquired for the purpose of laying down Meter Gauge
in place of Narrow Gauge Railway Line. The lands, under the ownership
of various persons situated in villages Bardhabujurg, Raipura &
Dantarda Khurd, have been acquired. From village Dantarda Khurd
around 2.200 hectares, from village Raipura 2.394 hectares and from
village Bardhaburjurg about 17.555 hectares, in total 28.689 hectares of
land was acquired under the Act of 2013. The Award was passed by
Land Acquisition Officer on 08.10.2021. The matter was agitated under
Section 64 of the Act of 2013 and Reference Court has applied the factor
of “2”, whereas according to appellant Reference Court should have
applied the factor of “1”, as notified by the State Government.
3. In the present appeal, solitary ground has been raised by appellant
that in place of factor of “2”, factor of “1” should have been applied. By
referring to Section 26 of the Act of 2013, it is submitted by counsel for
appellant that guidelines have been provided under the aforesaid
Section for determination of market value of land by Collector. It is
submitted that as per Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013, the market value
calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be
specified in the first schedule. By referring to Section 3(e) of the Act of
2013, it is submitted that since the land which has been acquired is
situated in the territory of State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, Section
3(e)(i) would apply and thus it is submitted that notification issued by
the State Government providing the factor “1” for multiplier as per
Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013, would apply. Thus, it is submitted that
Reference Court has wrongly applied the multiplier of “2” by treating
the factor as “2” as notified by the Central Government.
4. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for claimants. It
is submitted that since lands were acquired for the purpose of Union of
India, therefore, Section 3(e)(v) would apply and thus, the notificationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
32issued by the Central Government would apply according to which
multiplier/factor of “2” is applicable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Section 26 of the Act of 2013 reads as under:-
26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and
determining the market value of the land, namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to
sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the
nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-
section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private
companies or for public private partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the
date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1. – The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be
determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell
registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity
area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such
acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2. – For determining the average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the
agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned
shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3. – While determining the market value under this section
and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation
2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the
provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be
taken into consideration.
Explanation 4. – While determining the market value under this section
and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation
2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative
of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of
calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be
multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
33
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
cannot be determined for the reason that-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in
land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in
force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned
in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available
for the immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority,
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or
minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price
calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of
similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the
owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part
compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall
exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value so calculated under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any
owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the
value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under
sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land
acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise
and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent
market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the
market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an
educational institution established and administered by a religious or
linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the
right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013 reads as under:
3. Definitions.
– In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) to (d) xxx xxx xxx
(e) “appropriate Government” means,-
(i) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of,
a State, the State Government;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
34
(ii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within a Union
territory (except Puducherry), the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union
territory of Puducherry, the Government of Union territory of
Puducherry;
(iv) in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more
than one State, the Central Government, in consultation with the
concerned State Governments or Union territories; and
(v) in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the
Union as may be specified by notification, the Central
Government:
Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not
exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the
Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate
Government; ……
7. The only controversy involved in the present case is that which is the
“appropriate Government”, whether State Government or Central
Government?
8. The undisputed fact is that the entire land is situated within the State
of Madhya Pradesh and entire land has been acquired for the benefit of
Railways which is Union of India. It is clear from Section 3(e)(i) that if
the land is situated within the territory of the State of Madhya Pradesh,
then notification issued by the State Government would apply. However,
in the present case, although the land is situated within the State of
Madhya Pradesh but it has been acquired for the purposes of Union.
Therefore, as per Section 3(e)(v) of Act of 2013, notification issued by
the Central Government would apply. It is not the case of appellant that
Central Government has not notified the multiplier of “2”. Furthermore,
Division Bench of this Court in the case of BadrilalDhakad and Others
Versus Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online MP
280 has held as under:-
16. As per the definition under section 2(b) of the Act of 2013 the
State Government would be the appropriate Government in
relation to the acquisition of land situated within the territory of
State. The Central Government would be the appropriate
government in relation of acquisition of land situated within Union
territory except for Pondichery and in relation to acquisition of
land for the public purpose in more than one State, the Central
Government shall consult with the concerned State Government or
the Union territory and under section 2(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 inSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
35relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union,
as may be specified by notification, the appropriate Government
would be the Central Government. Since the land of the
petitioners is situated within the State Government, therefore, the
respondents are treating State Government as appropriate
Government and applying the notification dated 29.9.2014 under
section 26(2) of Act of 2013 which gave a cause of action to the
petitioners to challenge the validity of the said notification but if it
is held that in this acquisition the appropriate Government is the
Central Government then the notification issued by the Central
Government dated 9.2.2016 would apply in which the multiplier is
2.00 (two) for the rural area. As per 1st Schedule, the following
components provided in the table shall constitute the minimum
compensation package to be given to the landowners whose land is
acquired. Serial no. 2 is the factor by which the market value is to
be multiplied in the case of rural areas and for which the
appropriate government is required to notify the factor based on
the distance of the project from the urban area. The Central
Government has issued a notification prescribing the factor
2.00(two) whereas State of M.P. by way of impugned notification
dated 29.9.2014 has fixed the multiplier 1.00(one) but the NHAI
which is the instrumentality of the Central Government, therefore,
by virtue of 2(e)(v) of Act of 2013 the Central Government shall be
the appropriate Government, hence the notification dated 9.2.2016
issued by the Central Government would apply. In such a situation,
the validity of the notification issued by the State Government is
not required to be examined or adjudicated because the same is
not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Since the petitioners
have already preferred appeals before the Arbitrator u/s 3G(5),
therefore, it is for the Arbitrator to consider and decide the
multiplier in view of the findings given hereinabove instead of
setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the competent
authority.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
Reference Court did not commit any mistake by applying the multiplier
of “2” as notified by the Central Government. No other argument is
advanced by counsel for appellant.
10. It is not out of place to mention here that the claimants have also
filed appeals for enhancement of compensation amount. Since the
question of factor is covered in all the appeals and the claimants areSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
36satisfied with the factor of “2′ which has been applied by Reference
Court and this Court has also come to a conclusion that factor of “2”
would apply for multiplier as provided under Section 26(2) of Act of
2013, therefore, by keeping the question of determination of market
value, as provided under Section 26(1) of the Act of 2013 as challenged
by the claimants, open, the Award dated 31.03.2023 passed by Principal
District Judge, Sheopur (M.P.) in Land Acquisition Case No.
MJC/37/2022 is hereby affirmed so far as it relates to application of
factor “2” for multiplier as required under Section 26(2) of the Act of
2013.
11. With aforesaid observations, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.”
60. In relation to acquisitions carried out for National Highways, the
matter was considered by a Division Bench in WP No.16808/2019 (Indore), and
it has been held by the Division Bench as under :-
14. As per the definition under section 2(b) of the Act of 2013 the State
Government would be the appropriate Government in relation to the
acquisition of land situated within the territory of State. The Central
Government would be the appropriate government in relation of
acquisition of land situated within Union territory except for Pondichery
and in relation to acquisition of land for the public purpose in more than
one State, the Central Government shall consult with the concerned
State Government or the Union territory and under section 2(e)(v) of the
Act of 2013 in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the
Union, as may be specified by notification, the appropriate
Government would be the Central Government. Since the land of the
petitioners is situated within the State Government, therefore, the
respondents are treating State Government as appropriate Government
and applying the notification dated 29.9.2014 under section 26(2) of Act
of 2013 which gave a cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the
validity of the said notification but if it is held that in this acquisition the
appropriate Government is the Central Government then the notification
issued by the Central Government dated 9.2.2016 would apply in which
the multiplier is 2.00(two) for the rural area. As per 1 st Schedule, the
following components provided in the table shall constitute the minimum
compensation package to be given to the landowners whose land is
acquired. Serial no.2 is the factor by which the market value is to be
multiplied in the case of rural areas and for which the appropriate
government is required to notify the factor based on the distance of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
37project from the urban area. The Central Government has issued a
notification prescribing the factor 2.00(two) whereas State of M.P by
way of impugned notification dated 29.9.2014 has fixed the multiplier
1.00(one) but the NHAI which is the instrumentality of the Central
Government, therefore, by virtue of 2(e)(v) of Act of 2013 the Central
Government shall be the appropriate Government, hence the notification
dated 9.2.2016 issued by the Central Government would apply. In such a
situation, the validity of the notification issued by the State Government
is not required to be examined or adjudicated because the same is not
applicable in the case of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have
already preferred appeals before the Arbitrator u/s 3G(5), therefore, it
is for the Arbitrator to consider and decide the multiplier in view of the
findings given hereinabove instead of setting aside the award and
remanding the matter to the competent authority.”
61. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order
passed by the Reference Court in holding that the compensation would be
multiplied by a factor of 2.0 as per notification issued by the Government of
India. Therefore, this ground of the appellant State and the RVNL is also
discarded.
62. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all these appeals fail and are
dismissed. Cross-objections are also fail and hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj/nks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 7/23/2026
6:09:43 PM
