2011 INSC 0107
                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        Indra Vikram Singh

                        Vs.

                        State of M.P.

                        C.A.No.7027-7028 of 2004

                        (R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik JJ.)

                        20.01.2011

                        ORDER

1. The appellants are the legal heirs of one Padmini Kuarba who held the
Lambardari lease in regard to certain villages in Panna tehsil. The lease was
granted for 30 years on an annual payment of Rs.1242.25 to the State. The said
Lambardar continued in possession in pursuance of the said lease from 1.1.1943 to
31.12.1953. Thereafter, the leased villages were resumed vide notification dated
22.12.1953 with effect from 1.1.1954 issued under the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition
of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952. The resumption was challenged by the
Lambardar and ultimately this Court set aside the resumption on 21.2.1961 in
pursuance of which the leased villages were returned to the Lambardar on
30.4.1961. From 30.4.1961, the Lambardar continued in possession till 30.6.1966
when Lambardari was finally abolished by notification dated 28.8.1966 issued
under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Swatwadharik Adhikar Sampati (Vindhya
Pradesh) Adhiniyam, 1965. The possession was taken over on 1.7.1966. The
Collector, District Panna, by order dated 15.5.1968 determined the compensation
payable as Rs.22,939.30. That was determined by the Board of Revenue by order
dated 20.12.1968. The Lambardar challenged the order of Board of Revenue and
the High Court on 9.11.1970 quashed the order of the District Collector. The said
order was challenged by the State and this Court by order dated 16.7.1986
dismissed the appeal and directed the second respondent to determine the
compensation in the light of the observation of the High Court in its order dated
9.11.1970. Accordingly, the second respondent passed an order dated 30.5.1988
determining compensation. That was again challenged by the legal heirs of the
deceased Lambardar and the High Court by the impugned order dated 7.5.2002
allowed the writ petition in part. It upheld the compensation awarded but modified

Law Information Center       1                                  SpotLaw
the interest payable. While the Authority had granted interest at 3=% in terms of
the provisions of the Act, the High Court held that with effect from 10.3.1987 the
interest payable will be at the rate of 6% per annum. The said order is challenged
by the legal heirs of the Lambardar.

2. The High Court found that there is an error in the calculation of the
compensation. It also found that the average annual income was calculated in the
earlier order dated 15.5.1968 and that was not in dispute. The compensation has
been determined under two heads. The first is compensation for the unexpired
period of lease, that is for the 6 = years and the second was the compensation for
the period of wrongful vesting which was considered to be the period from
1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961. The grievance of the appellant is that for the purpose of
calculating the compensation, the unexpired period of lease should be taken not as
6 = years but the period from 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961, which is 7 years and 4
months. This contention has no merit as the compensation has been rightly
determined with reference to Section 4 of the 1965 Act read with Section 10 of the
1952 Act and Schedule I. For the purpose of compensation only the unexpired
period can be taken note of and that is how the calculation has been made. We also
find that the income for the period 1.1.1954 to 30.4.1961 was also calculated and
that also has been paid. The High Court has found that there was no error in the
method of calculation. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment
of the High Court. Appeal is dismissed.

Law Information Center  2  SpotLaw