Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Shambudayal Agrawal vs Shri Vivek Shrotriya on 22 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 3190 of 2016
Between:-
NIRANJAN KUMAR S/O MANAKCHAND
GARG , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 5/1,
SNEHLATAGANJ, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1. COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
2. COLLECTORATE DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE COMMISSIONER MOTI BUNGLOW
3. M G ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
4.
OFFICER 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No. 3293 of 2016
Between:-
SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL S/O LATE
SHRI DWARKADAS AGRAWAL , AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 19/5, SNEHLATAGANJ,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
COLLECTOR DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA
.
PRADESH)
- : 2 :-
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
2
COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA
.
PRADESH)
THE COMMISSIONER MOTI BUNGLOW
3
M G ROAD IDNROE (MADHYA
.
PRADESH)
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7
4
RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE
.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS.
WRIT PETITION No. 3294 of 2016
Between:-
RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI
SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL , AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 19/5, SNEHLATAGANJ,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA
.
PRADESH)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
2
COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA
.
PRADESH)
THE COMMISSIONER MOTI BUNGLOW
3
M G ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
.
PRADESH)
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
4 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7
. RACE COURCE ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION No. 8173 of 2016
Between:-
SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL S/O LATE
DWARKADAS AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT
69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 19/5
SNEHLATAGANJ INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
AND
- : 3 :-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE
2 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
. COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
THE COMMISSIONER THE STATE OF
3
MADHYA PRADESH MOTI BUNGLOW M
.
G ROAD INDROE (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
4 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7
. RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION No. 8174 of 2016
Between:-
RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL S/O
SHAMBHUDAYAL AGRAWAL , AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 19/5 SNEHLATAGANJ INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
1.
COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
2. COLLECTORATE , DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
THE COMMISSIONER MOTI BUNGLOW
3.
M G ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7, RACE
4.
COURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
. ....RESPONDENTS
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1458 of 2021
Between:-
SHRI SHAMBUDAYAL AGRAWAL S/O
LATE SHRI DWARKADAS AGRAWAL ,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 131, SHANTINIKETAN,
OPPOISTE BONBAY HOSPITAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
- : 4 :-
.....PETITIONER
AND
SHRI VIVEK SHROTRIYA CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7 RACE
COURSE ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
RESPONDENT
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 1431 of 2021
Between:-
RAJKUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHRI
SHAMBHUDAYAL AGARWAL , AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 131 SHANTINIKETAN NEAR
BOMBAY HOSPITAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI )
AND
SHRI VIVEK SHROTRIYA CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7 RACE
COURSE ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
(Advocate in all the writ petitions and contempt petitions)
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargav, leanred Addl. A.G. for the
Respondent/State) .
Shri Ambar Pare, learned counsel for the Respondent (Advocate
in all the writ petitions for the respondent No.4 and Advocate in
Contempt Petitions for the respondent No.1.)
ORDER
All issues are similar in these writ petitions and contempt
petitioner, therefore, all are being disposed of by common order.
The petitioners being landowners of the land have approached
this Court challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings by
applying the provisions of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation
- : 5 :-
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, as the same has lapsed as no physical
possession has been taken from the petitioners and the compensation
has not been paid.
The land owned by the petitioners had been acquired by the
Indore Development Authority for the development of the scheme.
According to them neither possession of the land has been taken from
them nor compensation has been paid to them, hence in view of
section 24 the acquisition proceedings undertaken under the old land
acquisition Act stand lapsed now.
The respondents have filed a return by submitting that
possession had already been taken and thereafter, the land has been
used for the purpose for which it was acquired. So far compensation
payable to the petitioners is concerned, the same had been deposited in
o/o of collector/ land acquisition officer for which petitioners are
always free to receive.
Petitioners are relying on the judgment passed in W.P.
No.4915/2014 (Birani Steel Industries and another Vs. State of
M.P. and others) decided on 17.02.2016 passed by Coordinate Bench
of this Court relying on a judgment passed in Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors and
Indore Hygiene Products & Ors. Vs. Indore Development
Authority & Ors. decided on 02.02.2016 and prays for quashment of
the proceedings.
Although against the said order, Indore Development Authority
- : 6 :-
has preferred Writ Appeal before this Court which is pending for
adjudication but the judgment passed in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was referred to the larger Bench and now larger
Bench in case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal &
Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 has decided all the issues involved in these
bunch of writ petitions.
Therefore, in view of the above law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) no relief
can be granted under Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners. So far as payment
compensation is concerned, petitioners are directed to furnish their
bank account details in the office of Land Acquisition Officer/
Collector, Indore and on furnishing the details of the bank account, the
amount of compensation payable to the petitioners as per award be
transferred in their accounts forthwith.
In view of the above, contempt petitions are also disposed of.
With the aforesaid, all the petitions are disposed of. Office is
directed to keep a photocopy of this order in all the connected writ
petitions and contempt petitions.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
praveen/-
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN
NAYAK
Date: 2022.02.24 17:53:44
+05'30'
