Laadsingh vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 13696 MP

                          1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT INDORE
                       BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                          &
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

             ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2022

           WRIT PETITION No. 4871 of 2020

 BETWEEN:-
   LAADSINGH S/O BHERUSINGH RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 35
1. YEARS,    OCCUPATION:    AGRICULTURIST    VILLAGE
   NAINAVADA TEH PACHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   AMARATSINGH S/O HARISINGH RAJPUR, AGED ABOUT 45
2. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE CHAPRA
   TEH. PACHORE DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
   GOPALDAS S/O KISHANDAS BAIRAGI, AGED ABOUT 57
   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE PATADIA
3.
   DHAKAD TEH. PACHORE DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                       .....PETITIONERS
 (BY SHRI MANISH VIJAYVARGIYA, ADVOCATE )

 AND
   UNION OF INDIA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
1. ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1,
   PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI (DELHI)
   NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH
   PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT 15
2.
   SAMPAT HILLS OPP. SAHARA CITY INDORE BYPASS BICHOLI
   MARDANA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    2

   STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR RAJGARH (MADHYA
3.
   PRADESH)
   SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) AND COMMPETENT
4. AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION SUB DIVISION SARANGPUR
   DIST. RA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SMT. ANITA SHARMA, ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR passed the following:

                              ORDER

With the consent of parties, heard finally.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

That, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon'ble Court that in the interest of Justice,

a) To set-aside the award (Annexure-P/1) in respect of the petitioners and returning back the agricultural lands of petitioners marked as 310/13 measured as 0.015 hectares, 310/1/2 measured as 0.009 hectares and 310/2/3 as 0.015 hectares.

b) To kindly order the respondents to mutate the name of petitioners instead of National Highways Authority of India in revenue records.

c) That, any other suitable relief may kindly be ordered to be given to the petitioner which the Hon'ble Court may consider justified.

The grievance of the petitioners that it has already more than five years of acquisition of their lands for which the compensation has also not been received by them.

Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the same by submitting that the issue involved in the present petition has already been settled by the decision of Division Bench at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.16663 of 2020 vide order dated 09.11.2020 as also by Single Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.98 of 2016 vide order dated 09.08.2016 in which it has been categorically held that once the land acquired by the Government it cannot be remitted back to the land owners and apart from that the amount of compensation has already been deposited by the respondent No.2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), however if the petitioners have not received the same, the respondents are not responsible for the same. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed in light of the decision rendered by the aforesaid Courts. Relevant paras No.3, 4, 5 and 6 of Division Bench judgment reads as under:-

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that since the land acquired has not been utilized and, therefore, is in excess than the land required for the construction of road, therefore the respondents be directed to return the unutilized land as is contemplated under section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The claim is put-forth on the basis of an observation by the Patwari of the Halka where the land is situated. On being asked as to once the land in question absolutely vests with the Central Government free of all encumbrances under sub-section (2) of section 3 D of the Act of 1956 where does the Patwari gets an authority to

determine the utility of the land, learned counsel fails to commend any such direction or determination by the authority of central government. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 D of 1956 Act stipulates "(2) on the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances."

4. Merely because some villagers join the landowners or whose claim the Patwari allegedly demarcates, when in law no such authority vests in him, it cannot be presumed the land acquired has remained utilized, more particularly when the same is acquired for construction of National Highway which is implicit with ever expanding element.

5. In view whereof the claim put-forth by the petitioners is misconceived.

6. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

In view of the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion the aforesaid decision would be applicable mutatis - mutandis in the present case. Hence no interference is made out in the present case. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed. Needless to say that the compensation amount has already been deposited with the respondent which may be received by the petitioners.

                (SUBODH ABHYANKAR)                  (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
                    JUDGE                                   JUDGE
   Arun/-


Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
Date: 2022.10.17 19:08:07
+05'30'