MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON HARILAL V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, March 28 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 24:

1. Appellant impugns order dated 05.01.2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed directing appellant to avail of the remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the case of the appellant is not covered by the Provision of Section 64 of the Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submits that there is no dispute to the entitlement to respondent no.4 to 50% share in the property.

3. Appellant has filed the subject writ petition challenging an order passed by the Sub Division Officer, Multai holding that 50% of the compensation is payable to the appellant and 50% of the compensation to respondent no.4.

4. It is not in dispute that the subject property, which has been acquired, was registered in the name of Shri Chandu Lal Sahu. Appellant is the son of Chandu Lal Sahu and respondent no.4 is the widow of Shri Dwarka Prasad, predeceased son of Shri Chandu Lal Sahu. Learned counsel for appellant very candidly admits that there is no testamentary disposition by Shri Chandu Lal Sahu.

5. In view of the fact that the parties profess the Hindu religion and Shri Chandu Lal Sahu has not left behind any testamentary disposition of his assets, the property left behind by Chandu Lal Sahu is liable to be appropriately apportioned between the class-1 legal heirs of Shri Chandu Lal Sahu. By the impugned order, the Sub Divisional Officer has apportioned the compensation between appellant and respondent no.4, the widow of Shri Dwarka Prasad, who was the son of Shri Chandu Lal Sahu. Clearly, the compensation is to be divided between the class-1 legal heirs of Shri Chandu Lal Sahu. In case, appellant is aggrieved by the apportionment or claims a higher share than his entitlement under the Hindu law, then he has to get an appropriate declaration either under Section 64 of the Act or from an competent Civil Court. In view thereof we find no infirmity in the view taken by the writ Court in declining to entertain the writ petition particularly in view of the disputed question of fact.

6. After the order has been dictated, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is in dire need of money and keeping in view the fact that there was no testamentary disposition by Shri Chandu Lal Sahu, he concedes to the apportionment done by the Sub Divisional Officer and prays that the respondent authority be directed to disburse the compensation amount as apportioned by the Sub Divisional Officer to appellant and respondent no.4, along with statutory interest as may be payable on the said amount.

7. In terms of the order of Sub Divisional Officer, 50% is to be paid to the appellant and 50% to the legal heirs of Late Dwarka Prasad, the predeceased son of Shri Chandu Lal Sahu, along with interest as per law.

8. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Authority to disburse the compensation to appellant and respondent no.4 in terms of orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer along with interest, payable for delay in disbursal of the compensation, if any provided and if there is no other legal impediment in disbursal of the amount.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.