Madhusudan Neema vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 6536 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhusudan Neema vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 4 March, 2024

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE


                                                         WP No. 7809 of 2007
                                      (SMT.RAMAKANTA & 3 ORS. AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)

                                                         WP No. 7823 of 2007
                                     (ANIL KUMAR JAIN & 3 OTHERS AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS)

                                                        WP No. 12480 of 2010
                          (SMT. SUSHILADEVI NIGAM AND OTHERS Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                          AND 04 ORS. AND OTHERS)

                                                        WP No. 12483 of 2010
                         (RPAKASH CHANDRA THR.PRAKASH CHAND AND ANR. AND OTHERS Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE
                                                OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 04 ORS. AND OTHERS)

                                                        WP No. 12485 of 2010
                         (MADHUSUDAN NEEMA AND OTHERS Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 04
                                                            ORS. AND OTHERS)

                                                        WP No. 12488 of 2010
                          (KANTILAL CHANDMAL JAIN THR.KARTA KANTILAL AND 03 ORS AND OTHERS Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 04 ORS. AND OTHERS)

                                                        WP No. 12489 of 2010
                         (ANOKHILLA AND 04 ORS. AND OTHERS Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
                                                             04 ORS. AND OTHERS)




                                   04-03-2024
                         Dated:

                               Shri Rohit Saboo - Advocate for petitioners in Writ Petition No.7809 of 2007

                         and Writ Petition No.7823 of 2007.

                               Shri Ashok K. Sethi - Learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Rahul Sethi

                         - Advocate for petitioners in Writ Petitions No.12480 to 12483, 12885, 12488 and

                         12489 of 2010.

                               Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Advocate for respondents - State of Madhya

Pradesh as well as Indore Development Authority.

__________________________________________________________________

These writ petitions were heard on 05.12.2023 and closed for orders, but

thereafter released on 02.01.2024 with direction to the State Government to file

additional reply to clarify the applicability of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the Act of 2013).

This bunch of writ petitions came up for hearing on 01.02.2024 and by way

of last indulgence, four weeks time was again granted; and it was made clear that

no further opportunity shall be granted.

Till today, neither additional reply has been filed on behalf of the

respondents nor there is any submission in respect of applicability of Section 24 (2)

of the act of 2013.

It is how the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and Indore Development

Authority are serious about their land and schemes.

Let explanation be called by the respondents from the Officer-in-Charge of

the case as to why he has not filed additional reply in this matter, despite sufficient

time was granted by this Court.

These writ petitions are pending before this Court since 2007 that too after

remand by the Apex Court for fresh adjudication, hence no more further time is

liable to be granted to the respondents.

Shri Rahul Sethi has filed written synopsis, the respondents may also file the

same, if so desire.

This bunch of seven writ petitions is heard and closed for judgment.

Let a copy of this order be kept in other connected cases.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE

rcp