Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navlakha Shramik Avas Griha ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
WRIT PETITION No. 4328 of 2014
Between:
-
NAVLAKHA SHRAMIK AVAS GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI
SANSTHA MARYADIT PRESIDENT 44 LODHIPURA NO.1,
INDORE, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI A.K. SETHI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI
RAHUL SETHI FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1. DEPTT. OF REVENUE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT STATE OF M.P.
HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT DISTRICT
2.
BHOPAL M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA, DISTRICT
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND EX OFFICIO DY
3. SECRETARY OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT INDORE
M.P. INDORE M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OFFICE OF COLLECTOR, INDORE
4.
DISTRICT INDORE 5 M.P. INDORE M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, DISTRICT INDORE M.P. 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
5.
PRADHIKARAN BHAWAN, DISTRICT INDORE M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDL. A.G. FOR
THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
WRIT PETITION No. 93 of 2015
Between:-
SMT. SUNDARBAI W/O LATE SHRI RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 102, SAMVID NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
PURSHOTTAM S/O LATE RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 102, SAMVIT NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD
2.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 2 :-
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 102, SAMVID NAGAR,KANADIA ROAD
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
JAI PRAKASH S/O LATE RAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 102, SAMVID NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
OM PRAKASH S/O LATE SHRI RAMLALM, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST 102, SAMVID NAGAR, KANADIA ROAD
(INDORE MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. PUSHPA JOSHI W/O KRISHNA KANT JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 48
6. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 403, CHANAKYA COMPLEX INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.K. SAXENA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH ARUN ARORA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS. )
AND
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
1.
RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
2.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
SECRETARY HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH
3.
BHAWAN BHOPAL(MADHYA PRADESH)
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA
4.
PRADESH)
COLLECTOR AND EX OFFICIO, DY.SECRETARY REVENUE DEPAT. GOVT.
5.
OF M.P. COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAVA, LEARNED ADDL. ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE. )
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/
NO.1.)
WRIT PETITION No. 115 of 2015
Between:-
LAXMI NARAYAN THRU. SARAF DWARKADAS S/O SHRI VITHALDAS
11, TAMOLI BAKHAL, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR ASUDANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER.)
AND
HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1.
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR COLLECTOR OFFICE PRASHASNIK SANKUL, MOTI
2.
TABELA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR/LAND AND ACQUISITION OFFICER PRASHASNIK
- : 3 :-
SANKUL, MOTI TABELA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7,
4.
RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAVA, LEARNED ADDL. ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.4./IDA.)
WRIT PETITION No. 124 of 2015
Between:-
BABU RAO S/O KRISHIN RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1.
AGRICULTURE KHATI MOHALLA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
HAJARI S/O CHUNILAL(D) THR LRS SMT. SARITA D/O HAJARI, AGED
2. ABOUT 38 YEARS, KHATIMOHALLA, VILLAGE MUSAKHEDI, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
HAJARI S/O CHUNILAL(D) THR LRS SMT. MADHU D/O HAJARI , AGED
3. ABOUT 35 YEARS, KHATI MOHALLA, VIL. MUSAKHEDI, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RADHESHYAM S/O SAWANT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, KHATI
4.
MOHALLA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BALWANT S/O BHAGWAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, KHATI MOHALLA,
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADRI S/O JAGANNATH (D) THR LRS KUMTABAI W/O BADRILAL,
6. AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, VIL. MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
BADRI S/O JAGANNATH (D) THR LRS GUDDI W/O ARUN PATEL VIL.
7.
MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADRI S/O JAGANNATH (D) THR SEEMA W/O MAHESH MANDLOI VIL.
8.
MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADRI S/O JAGANNATH (D) THR LRS SUNIL S/O BADRILAL, AGED
9.
ABOUT 38 YEARS, VIL. MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BADRI S/O JAGANNATH (D) THR LRS REKHA W/O SANJAY PATEL,
10. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, VIL. MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RAMCHARAN S/O BALWANT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VIL.
11.
MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
TULSIRAM S/O KASHIRAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VIL.
12.
MUSAKHEDI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.K. SAXENA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH ARUN ARORA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS. )
AND
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 7,
1.
RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 4 :-
DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING TIN
2.
SHED BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THR CHIEF SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
5.
COLLECTORATE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAVA, LEARNED ADDL. ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/
NO.1.)
WRIT PETITION No. 150 of 2015
Between:-
SHYAMLAL S/O SITARAM PATIDAR OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
1.
VILL.SUNDREL TEH.DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
TARACHAND S/O SHYAMLAL PATIDAR(D) THR LRS SMT. KAMLABAI
2. W/O TARACHAND PATIDAR VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARAMPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
TARACHAND S/O SHYAMLAL PATIDAR(D) THR LRS JAWAHARLAL S/O
3. SHYAMLAL PATIDAR VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
TARACHAND S/O SHYAMLAL PATIDAR(D) THR LRS JAIPRAKASH S/O
4. SHYAMLAL PATIDAR VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
TARACHAND S/O SHYAMLAL PATIDAR(D) THR SUBHASH S/O
5. SHYAMLAL PATIDAR VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
TARACHAND S/O SHYAMLAL PATIDAR(D) THR LR DINESH S/O
6. SHYAMLAL PATIDAR VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARMAPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RAMLAL S/O MANGILAL PATIDAR VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL
7.
DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARJUN S/O GANPATLAL PATIDAR(D) THR LRS GULABBAI W/O ARJUN
8.
PATIDAR VIL.SUNDREL,TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARJUN S/O GANPATLAL PATIDAR(D) THR LRS MAHADEV S/O ARJUN
9.
PATIDAR VIL.SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARJUN S/O GANPATLAL PATIDAR(D) SHANKAR S/O ARJUN PATIDAR
10.
VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARMAPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARJUN S/O GANPATLAL PATIDAR (D) THR VIJAY S/O ARJUN PATIDAR
11.
VIL. SUNDREL,TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
ARJUN S/O GANPATLAL PATIDAR(D) KAILASH S/O ARJUN PATIDAR
12.
VIL. SUNDREL, TEHSIL DHARAMPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
AMBARAM S/O SITARAM PATIDAR(D) THR LRS GIRJA D/O AMBARAM
13.
PATIDAR D-23, NEHRU NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
AMBARAM S/O SITARAM PATIDAR (D) THR LRS MAYA D/O AMBARAM
14.
PATIDAR D-23, NEHRU NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 5 :-
AMBARAM S/O SITARAM PATIDAR (D) THR LRS CHAYA D/O
15. AMBARAM PATIDAR D-23, NEHRU NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.K. JAIN LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI VAIBHAV
JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER NO.7 )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING
1. ENVIRONMENT DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
COLLECTOR PRASHASHNIK SANKUL, MOTI TABELA INDORE
2.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PRASHASHNIK
3.
SANKUL, MOTI TABELA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
C.E.O. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
4.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NOS.4/IDA.
WRIT PETITION No. 158 of 2015
Between:-
NAMAMAL THRU. LRS SHREECHAND S/O NAMAMALJI KATJU COLONY
1.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
LAXMICHAND S/O HARIRAM OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURAL 52, BIMA
2.
NAGAR,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. KAVITABAI W/O SHREECHAND OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURAL 52,
3.
BIMA NAGAR,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
ASHOK KUMAR S/O BHAGWANDAS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURAL 52,
4.
BIMA NAGAR,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAVITRAIBAI W/O BHAGWANDAS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURAL 52,
5.
BIMA NAGAR,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI V.K. JAIN LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH REWAT SINGH
RAGHUWANSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7 RACE COURSE ROAD (MADHYA
1.
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DY. COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. INDORE (MADHYA
3.
PRADESH)
- : 6 :-
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAVA, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.4./IDA. )
WRIT PETITION No. 911 of 2015
Between:-
LAVKUSH GRIH NIRMAAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MYDT. THRU.
1. NARENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT 47, CHITAWAD ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
LILADHAR S/O NARAYANLALJI PALIWAL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: NIL 6, KANUNGO BAKHAL, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUMEET SAMVATSAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS. )
AND
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING CHIEF SECRETARY VALLABH
1.
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TINSHAD
2.
NORTH, T.T. NAGAR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
C.E.O. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RACE COURSE ROAD,
3.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR AND EX OFFICIO DY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
4.
COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, COLLECTORATE
5.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
((BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR MITTAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/ NO.3 IDA.)
WRIT PETITION No. 2409 of 2015
Between:-
JANAK PRASAD THRU. LRS MADHAVLAL S/O LATE JANAK PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI. HOUSE NO.802 NEAR
PATIDAR DHARMSHALA KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR ASUDANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER.)
AND
- : 7 :-
HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYA MITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIVEK JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.4./IDA.
WRIT PETITION No. 1411 of 2016
Between:-
HARISH BAJAJ S/O LATE SHRI DEEPCHAND BAJAJ, AGED ABOUT 65
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 67 JAIRAMPUR COLONY DISTT.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT ABHA YADAV W/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 55
2. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 11, LALARAM NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
GAURAV YADAV S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 32
3. YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 11, LALARAM NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAM CHANDRA S/O KANIRAM R/O H.N.65, PIPALYARAO, TEHSIL &
4
DISTRICT INDORE (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI P.K. SAXENA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH ARUN ARORA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS. )
AND
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 7
1.
RACE COURSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPTT TIN SHED
2.
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY DEPT
3. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, MANTRLAYA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE COLLECTOR INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
5.
COLLECTORATE INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR MITTAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/ NO.1./IDA)
WRIT PETITION No. 111 of 2015
- : 8 :-
Between:-
RAMGOPAL THRU. LRS LAXMI NARAYAN S/O LATE RAMGOPAL
1.
KHAJRANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECED. RAMESHCHAND THROUGH LRS. PREM PATIDAR S/O LATE
2.
RAMESHCHANDRA KHAJRANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECED. RAMESHCHAND THROUGH LRS. VIJAY PATIDAR S/O LATE
3.
RAMESHCHANDRA KHAJRANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECED. SURESHCHAND THROUGH LRS. PRAVEEN PATIDAR S/O LATE
4.
SURESHCHAND KHAJRANA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DECED. SURESHCHAND THROUGH LRS. HITESH PATIDAR S/O LATE
5.
SURESH CHAND KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SATYANARAYAN S/O LATE RAMGOPAL KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA
6.
PRADESH)
JAGDISH S/O LATE RAMGOPAL KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA
7.
PRADESH)
SMT. LEELABAI D/O RAJARAM KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA
8.
PRADESH)
SMT. SHAKUNTALA BAI D/O RAJRAM KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA
9.
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ROMESH DAVE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
NOS.1 TO 4.)
AND
HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1.
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR PRASHASNIK SANKUL, MOTI TABELA (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PRASHASNIK
3.
SANKUL, MOTI TABELA (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7,
4.
RACE COURSE ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.4./IDA.)
WRIT PETITION No. 118 of 2015
Between:-
SADASHIV JOSHI S/O LATE SHRI NANDRAM JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 74
YEARS, VILLAGE KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ROMESH DAVE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.)
AND
- : 9 :-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING
1. ENVIRONMENT DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
COLLECTOR PRASHASHNIK SANKUL, MOTI TABELA INDORE
2.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PRASHASHNIK
3.
SANKUL, MOTI TABELA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
C.E.O. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7, RACE COURSE ROAD,
4.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.4./IDA)
WRIT PETITION No. 1221 of 2015
Between:-
RAMCHANDRA S/O LATE SHRI MANGILAL JI OCCUPATION: LABORER
1. VILLAGE CHITTAWAD, TEHSIL AND DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
MADAN S/O LATE MANGILAL JI OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
2.
CHTTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR S/O LATE MANGILAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
3.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. KASTURIBAI W/O LATE MANGILAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
4.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMESHCHANDRA S/O LATE HEERA LAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
5.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. NARMADA BAI W/O LATE HEERA LAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
6.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
JAGDISH S/O LATE HEERA LAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
7.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
VIJAY S/O LATE HEERALALJI OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
8.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. TARABAI W/O LATE CHUNNILAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
9.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SANTOSH S/O LATE CHUNNILALJI OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
10.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
PAWAN S/O LATE CHUNNILALJI VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE
11.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
MANOJ S/O CHUNNILAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-CHITTAWAD,
12.
TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SMT. GEETABAI W/O LATE MANNALAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
13.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
- : 10 :-
ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE MANNALAL OCCUPATION: LABOURER
14.
VILL-CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SATISH S/O LATE MANNALALJI OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
15.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUBHASH S/O LATE MANNALALJI OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
16.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NIRMALA S/O LATE KAMAL KANT OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
17.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
VIKAS S/O LATE KAMAL KANT OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
18.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
MANISH S/O LATE KAMAL KANT OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILL-
19.
CHITTAWAD, TEH-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIT AGRAWAL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI ANUJ
BHARGAVA FOR THE PETITIONERS.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ENVIRONMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE MOTI TABELA (MADHYA PRADESH)
DEPUTY COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER COLLECTORATE
3.
MOTI TABELA (MADHYA PRADESH)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 7,
4.
RACE COURSE ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PUSHYAMITRA BHARGAV, LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.)
(BY SHRI VIKAS JAISWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/
NO.4./IDA)
(Order passed on 10/03/2022)
PER: VIVEK RUSIA, J.
The petitioners being landowners have filed the present
petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated at the
instance of Indore Development Authority (IDA) for the acquisition
of their land for scheme no.94 (Eastern Ring Road).
Facts have been taken from the writ petition no.4328/2014.
1/ The petitioner is a registered cooperative society registered
under the provisions of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
The Board of Directors has authorized the president of the society to
- : 11 :-
file this present petition. There are as many as 250 members of the
society aspirant to get developed plots. The petitioner/society
purchased the land bearing several survey numbers total area of
6.166 hectares in a total area of 15.10 acres. The State Government
issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on
21.07.1987 for the acquisition of the private land of several
landowners to construct Ring Road by way of scheme no. 94.
Thereafter, notification issued under section 6 of the LA Act was
published on 05.08.1988. The land acquisition officer had passed the
award dated 20.03.1991 after assessing the compensation of
Rs.7,99,132/- payable to the landowners as per law.
2/ The amount so assessed by the land acquisition officer was
deposited on 07.05.1991 by the Indore Development Authority and
thereafter remaining amount was deposited on 23.08.2003.
According to the petitioner the aforesaid amount was not paid by the
State Government and no actual physical possession was ever taken
by the respondents from the petitioners.
3/ The petitioners submitted a representation to respondent no.5
for release of the land from scheme no.94 but the same was rejected
vide communication dated 04.10.1993 which the petitioner had
challenged by way of writ petition no.1929/1999. The writ petition
was disposed of vide order dated 28.03.1994 with the directions to
reconsider the case of the petitioner and the interim protection
granted was directed to continue. According to the petitioner vide
order dated 15.07.1996 respondent no.2 in the exercise of power
under section 52 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,
1973 directed for modification of the scheme no. 94 and further
directed to return the un-utilised land i.e. 8.6. acres. By general order
dated 13.09.1996 the direction regarding the release of the land was
- : 12 :-
kept in abeyance thereafter, vide order dated 07.04.2000 the
respondent no.2 has withdrawn the order dated 15.07.1996.
4/ The petitioner filed writ petition no.1006/2000 challenging the
validity of the order dated 07.04.2000 which was dismissed by the
writ court on 16.05.2006. According to the petitioner during the
pendency of the writ petition, the respondents were restrained to
dispossess the petitioners by way of the interim order.
5/ The petitioners/society approached the Division Bench of this
court by way of writ appeal No.18/2006 in which by of interim relief
impugned order of dispossession was stayed. The Division Bench of
this court has allowed the writ appeal and quashed the dated
07.04.2000 and restored the order dated 24.08.1996 ( whereby order
dated 15.7.1997 was stayed).
6/ Being aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench Indore
Development Authority approached the Supreme Court by way of
SLP No.14581/2010 and in all others writ appeals. Before the Apex
Court, the IDA filed an affidavit on 12.07.2012 that the possession
had already been taken from the petitioner. Some landowners also
filed the SLPs. During the pendency of all bunch of SLPs before the
Apex Court new act of land acquisition in the name of The Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force w.e.f.
01.04.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013).
7/ The petitioner has approached this court by way of writ
petition contending that by virtue of section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013
that neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation has
not been paid to them, therefore, the entire land acquisition
proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed and acquired land of the
petitioner is liable to be released from the scheme. Notices were
- : 13 :-
issued in these bunch of writ petitions and respondents were called
upon to file returns.
8/ All the pending SLPs came up or hearing before the Apex
Court and were finally disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2014
without entering into the merits by granting liberty to the landowners
to pray for the revival of the appeals in the event the order passed
under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 adverse to their interest. After
disposal of the aforesaid SLPs, now these petitions are before this
court. The respondents were called upon to file the reply.
9/ Respondent no.5 Indore Development Authority which is the
main contesting party in all these writ petitions has filed the return by
submitting that the possession of the land had been taken on
07.06.1991, 06.05.1992 and 28.06.1991 by the land acquisition
officer and intimation were sent to the Indore Development Authority
along with Panchnamas and possession receipts prepared on the spot.
The Indore Development Authority took the possession as per law
therefore, the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected that
no possession has been taken yet. It is further submitted that the
answering respondent had already deposited the entire amount to the
land acquisition officer but the petitioner/ other landowners
deliberately did not withdraw the amount therefore, it cannot be said
that compensation was not offered or paid.
10/ Thereafter, the petitioner filed the rejoinder and respondents
filed the additional return. The State Government has not filed the
return but has adopted the return filed by respondent no.5 i.e. IA
No.1120/2020.
11/ During the pendency of these writ petitions, the judgment
passed by the apex court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal and others reported in
- : 14 :-
(2014) 3 SCC 183 came up for reconsideration before the
constitutional bench of Apex Court(five Judges) in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported
in (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Hon'ble'ble apex court has not only
overruled the judgment rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation Vs.
Harakchand (supra) as well as all other decisions following the Pune
Municipal Corporation. The apex court has held that in case the
person has been tendered the compensation as provided under section
31(1) of the Act of 1984 and it is not open to him to claim the
acquisition proceedings has lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act of
2013 due to the non-payment or not depositing of compensation in
the court. It has been further held that the mode of taking possession
under the Act of 1894 as contemplated under section 24(2) of the Act
is by drawing of inquest report or by memorandum. Once the award
has been passed on taking possession under section 16 of the Act of
1894 the land vests in the State Government and there is no divesting
provided under section 24(2) of the Act. The provisions of section
24(2) of the Act provides the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in
cases where authorities are failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the
Act of 2013 came into force. The conclusive paras in the judgment
of Indore Development Authority(Supra) are as under:-
365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all
other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) has been followed, are also overruled. The decision
in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra)
cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and
other decisions following the same are also overruled. In
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead)
through L.Rs. and Ors., (supra), the aspect with respect to
the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether 'or' has to be read
as 'nor' or as 'and' was not placed for consideration.
Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of
- : 15 :-
the discussion in the present judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as of 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of the Act of 2013, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered
by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall
continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of 2013 Act
under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as
'and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act takes place where due to
inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has
not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other
words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has
not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if
compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section
24(2) of 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all
beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of 1894 Act shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions
of 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition of 1894 Act has not been fulfilled, interest
under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-
deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the
lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-
deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five
years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to
be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification
for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the of 1894 Act, it is not
open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under
Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of
compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners
who had refused to accept compensation or who sought
reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of
- : 16 :-
2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of of 2013 Act is to be
treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the of 1894
Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been
passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the of
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take
possession and pay compensation for five years or more
before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for
land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on
1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to a
new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013
Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor
allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of the court to
invalidate acquisition.
12/ In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, at
the very outset Shri Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
and other Senior counsel appearing for others writ petitions have
fairly submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief
under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in view of the law laid down by
the apex court supra. Learned senior advocates submit that the only
relief that is available to the petitioner is to claim i.e. return of
unutilized land which had already been directed to be released from
the scheme and returned to the petitioners vide order dated
15.07.1996. The Division Bench of this court has allowed the writ
appeal and quashed the dated 07.04.2000 and restored the order
- : 17 :-
dated 15.7.1997, therefore, the respondents be directed to return the
aforesaid land or acquire under the provisions of the new Land
Acquisition Act i.e. Act of 2013. Shri Sethi learned senior counsel
further submits that the State Government has not filed the reply
therefore, it is deemed that the Government has nothing to oppose
the aforesaid prayer.
13/ Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in W.P. No.111/2015 and W.P. No.118/2015 submits that the
petitioners have filed the rejoinder to challenge the legality of
proceeding of possession of the land of the petitioners. The
petitioners are disputing the Moukha panchnama-cum-receipt dated
07.06.1991 prepared by incompetent authority as same was not
prepared in presence of two independent witnesses. The petitioners
have verified that said two witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar Pandey
and Rajesh Jain are not independent witnesses, but they are
employees of Indore Development Authority, therefore, such
possession cannot be said to be legal possession hence it should be
treated that land has never been transferred to the IDA hence, the
entire proceedings vitiate by virtue under section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
14/ These two writ petitions W.P. No.111/2015 and WP
No.118/2015 are pending since 2015. The first time these petitioners
are raising this issue by way of rejoinder filed on the day when the
cases are fixed for final argument. No such plea has been taken in the
writ petition or no such effort has been made to raise this plea by
way of amendment in the writ petitions. Therefore, at this stage, the
respondents had no occasion to controvert these grounds therefore
rejoinder is not liable to be taken on record. Even otherwise after the
lapse of three decades, petitioners are not permitted to raise this
issue. The land had already been utilised for the purpose mentioned
- : 18 :-
in the notification.
15/ Shri Amit Agrawal learned senior counsel appearing with Shri
Anju Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.
No.1221/2015 has raised an additional ground that in light of the
judgment passed in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) if the compensation for the majority of the landowners
covered by the notification under section 4 of the Old Act was not
deposited in the account of beneficiaries than also land acquisition
proceedings shall deem to have been lapsed and would entitle the
landowners to claim compensation under the Act of 2013 as the
scheme does survive. It is further submitted by the learned senior
counsel for since respondent no.5 did not deposit the entire
acquisition amount of Rs.34,83,026/- with respondent no.4, the
petitioners are entitled to claim compensation under the Act of 2013.
It is further submits that Rs.50,00,000/- was deposited on 07.05.1991
and thereafter, the remaining compensation amount of Rs.72,34,536/-
was deposited on 28.08.2003 therefore, the petitioners are entitled to
interest of this delayed payment. Shri Agrawal learned senior
advocate further submits that under proviso 2 of sub-section (2) of
section 24 of the Act of 2013 notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1) the proceedings initiated under Old land acquisition
Act where award has been made five years or more before the
commencement of the Act of 2013 shall be deemed to have lapsed in
the cases where physical possession has not been taken and the
compensation has not been paid. This provisions of 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 would apply to all the awards passed before 01.01.2014
also when the Act of 2013 came into force and since in this case the
full amount of compensation was not deposited by the Indore
Development Authority then the proceedings cannot be said to be
- : 19 :-
continued and petitioners are entitled to compensation under the new
LA Act.
16/ This additional ground deserves no consideration by this court
as the same has already been considered by the Apex Court in the
case of the Indore Development Authority (Supra). The proviso in
section 24 is a part of sub-section- (2) of section 24, the window
period of five is provided to complete the acquisition proceedings
where the award has been passed the provisions of the old land
acquisition Act. It has been further held that section 24(1) and
section 24 (2) deal with a different subject. Finally, it has been held
that section 24(1)(a) operates where no award is made in a pending
acquisition proceeding, Section 24(1)(b) operates where an award
has been passed and such proceeding would continue under the old
LA Act. The proviso is an exception to section 24(2) and in part the
new regime for payment of higher compensation in case of default
for five years or more after award. Further proviso says that in case
of the majority of beneficiaries the amount has been deposited then
landowners are not entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of law. This argument has no substance hence rejected .
17/ Shri Bhargav learned Additional Advocate General has placed
reliance over judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal No.1150/2020 vide order dated 26.03.2021 in which it
has been held that the deeming clause section 24 (2) of the Act of
2013 of lapsation of can be pressed into service if the award is passed
before five years from the date of commencement of act of 2013.
Conclusions...
18/ It is correct that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions
only seeking quashment of the entire land acquisition proceedings by
virtue of the provisions of section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. At the
- : 20 :-
relevant point of time, the SLPs were pending challenging the
validity of the order 22.01.2010 passed in writ appeal no.18/2006
before the Supreme Court. During pendency of the SLPs the
judgment of Pune Municipal (Supra) came and in view of the said
judgment, all the petitioners have rushed to this court seeking
quashment of the entire land acquisition proceeding by way of these
writ petitions. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation(supra), the SLPs were disposed
of with liberty to pursue the writ petition with additional liberty to
Indore Development Authority and landowners to revive all pending
appeals ( before the Supreme Court) in case of an order under
section 24(2) of 2013 Act is adverse to them. Now in view of the law
laid down by the Indore Development Authority (supra) relief
claimed by virtue of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not survive
as the law laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra)has been
overruled. Shri Sethi learned senior advocate has rightly accepted
that no relief can be granted in these writ petitions after the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra). Hence all the writ petitions are liable to be
dismissed.
19/ So far, the issues of implementation of the order 24.8.1996 and
release of the unutilized land by the Indore Development Authority
are concerned the same is not before this court in these writ petitions.
Since the order dated 24.08.1996 is not before and no relief has been
claimed by the petitioners hence the State government has no
occasion to file the reply in this petition. For all purposes, this writ
petitions have become rendered infructuous. But looking at the facts
and circumstances of these cases it would be appropriate to grant
liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the
- : 21 :-
Government seeking the release of unutilized land before filling fresh
writ petition before the High Court.
20/ Shri Pushya Mitra Bhargav, learned Additional Advocate
General for the respondent/State has rightly submitted that the
petitioners have filed the petition only seeking quashment of
acquisition proceeding by virtue of provisions of section 24(2) of
2013 Act and there is no other relief claimed in this petition. In view
of the Indore Development Authority (supra) all writ petitions have
been rendered infructuous. So far the relief regarding the return of
the unutilized land is concerned although the order dated 24.08.1996
has been restored but there is no relief seeking implementation of the
aforesaid order. There are various conditions in the aforesaid order
which are required to be fulfilled by the petitioners before claiming
the return of land. The said order has not even been filed in these writ
petitions. The petitioners are free to file fresh petitions seeking
implementation of the order dated 24.08.1996 and the State will file
the reply. Hence the state government has not filed any reply in these
writ petitions and the relief claimed against the IDA as stated above
does not survive.
21/ Hence all the writ petitions are dismissed with limited liberty
as stated above. In case the petitioner/petitioners submit a
representation to the competent authority of the State Government
then the same shall be considered in accordance with law and shall
be decided by passing a reasoned order. Let photo copy of this order
be retained in each connected writ petitions.
No order as to cost.
(VIVEK RUSIA )
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,
KAMALAS
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed6cba
241effad892107d95ef0a1afc55b4,
pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61A1E
E901C09EF29,
ANAN
serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F3247441C
87E7E0817FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9FF,
cn=AJIT KAMALASANAN
Date: 2022.03.10 18:27:52 +05'30'
