Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kasturibai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(D.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA AND HON'BLE
Mr. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR(VERMA) JJ.)
Writ Petition No.172/2022
Petitioner No.1:- Mrs. Kasturibai Thora,
Widow of Late Mr. Tikamchand Thora,
Adult, Housewife,
Petitioner No.2:- Dharmendra Kumar,
S/o Late Mr. Tikamchand Thora,
Age-53 years, Occupation:- Business,
Petitioner No.3:- Anil Kumar Thora,
S/o Late Mr. Tikamchand Thora,
Age-Adult, Occupation-Business,
Petitioner No.4:- Vinay Kumar,
S/o Late Mr. Tikamchand Thora,
Age-Adult, Occupation- Business
All residents of Near Khari Kuvi Byhanpura,
District Mandsaur (M.P.) 458775
Versus
Respondent No.1:- State of Madhya Pradesh through its Principal
Secretary, Department of Land Revenue, Vallabh
Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) -462004
Respondent No.2:- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum
Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) Garoth,
District-Mandsaur (M.P.)-458880
Respondent No.3:- National Highway Authority of India,
through its Project Director, Project
Implementation Unit, Bungalow No.2, Pratap
Nagar Extension Ratlam (M.P.)- 457001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Ms. Manjula Mukhati, learned counsel for the petitioners.
• Shri Aditya Garg, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Indore, Date:10.01.2022:
The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the
the validity of amended order dated 05.06.2021 passed by the
Respondent no.2 Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) cum Competent
Authority (Land Acquisition) Garoth, District- Mandsaur by which
- : 2 :-
area under acquisition has been reduced which resulted into
reduction of compensation.
The petitioners have filed the copy of order dated 07.04.2021
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7260/2021 in
which similar action of the SDO has been consider and deprecated
and this court has set aside the order. The copy of the order dated
07.04.2021 passed in WP No.7260/2021 is reproduced below:-
"This petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution takes exception to the order dated 19/02/2021
(Annexure P/1) whereby learned Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue) and Land Acquisition Officer, Garoth, District-
Mandsaur has modified the award by passing the attached
order dated 19/02/2021.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an
award dated 20/01/2021 was passed whereby amount of
compensation in favour of petitioner was determined. The
note-sheet dated 19/02/2021 (Annexure P/1) shows that
learned Land Acquisition Officer received some phone call
from the Project Director, Indian National Highway Authority,
Ratlam and on the strength of which he decided to reduce and
modify the amount of compensation in the award dated
30/01/2021. Consequently, he passed a "revised/modified"
order and reduced the amount of compensation unilaterally. It
was called in question on twin grounds:- (i) after passing the
award dated 30/01/2021, the SDO became "functus officio"
and had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to modify
the award. (ii) There is no enabling provision in the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which enables him
to undertake the aforesaid exercise moreso when the
beneficiary/petitioner was not even put to notice. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of Chhatisgarh High Court in WP (C)
No.665/2019 (Mahesh Nachrani & Ors. vs. Union of India
& Suresh Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Ors.)
- : 3 :-
decided on 14/09/2020.
3) The prayer is opposed by learned Dy. Advocate
General, who supported the impugned order. However, no
enabling provision could be pointed out which permits the
SDO to undertake the exercise of passing modified order
dated 19/02/2021. In absence of showing any enabling
provision, we are unable to countenance the order dated
19/02/2021 whereby without authority, jurisdiction and
competence, the SDO has unilaterally reduced the amount of
compensation.
4) Resultantly, the impugned order dated 19/02/2021 is set
aside. This order will not come in the way of Competent
Authority to take action if law so permits.
CC as per rules."
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to take a
different view because the said order has become finality and binding
on us as the order dated 07.04.2021 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have
filed a representation for release of compensation amount. If such a
representation has been filed then the competent authority is directed
to consider the decide the same.
With the aforesaid the writ petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE JUDGE
Ajit
AJIT
Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001,
KAMALASA
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed6cba241
effad892107d95ef0a1afc55b4,
pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61A1EE90
1C09EF29,
NAN
serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F3247441C87E7
E0817FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9FF, cn=AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Date: 2022.01.10 18:00:10 +05'30'
