Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaushal Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 4814 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
KAUSHAL PRASAD MISHRA S/O RAMMILAN
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED EMPLOYEE BARA TEHSIL HUZUR,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUYASH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT.
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR REWA DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL
CORPORAITON REWA DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANKIT PAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) Direct the respondents that they shall not take
the possession of petitioner's land bearing
Survey no.71/8 area 0.014 RA, situated at
Mouza Bara (Indra Nagar), Tehsil Huzur,
District Rewa (MP), which belongs to the
ownership of the petitioner as per Section 24 of
the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Act, 2013, in the interest of
justice.
(ii) Any other relief deemed fit in the fact &
circumstances of the case with cost of the
petition be awarded to the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a
suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction relating to Survey
No.71/8 area 0.014 aare situated in village Bara, Indra Nagar, Tehsil
Huzur, district Rewa. The said suit was dismissed by trial Court by
judgment and decree dated 14.10.2015 by holding that the disputed land
was acquired by Rewa Sudhar Nyas. Against dismissal of the suit, the
petitioner filed W.P.No.16777/2016 which was dismissed by order dated
21.11.2016 and R.P.No.809/2016 was also dismissed. The petitioner
preferred a writ appeal no.31/17. However, the writ appeal no. 31/17 was
dismissed by Division Bench of this Court by holding that in case if the
petitioner challenges the order of the Trial Court, then he has to take
recourse to the remedy to file appeal. However, petitioner was granted
liberty to file a fresh petition to seek remedy under Section 24 of the Right
to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
& Resettlement Act, 2013.
3. It is submitted that although the land was acquired but once the possession
was not taken and compensation was not paid, then the acquisition
proceedings had stand lapsed in view of the Act, 2013. To buttress his
contention, the counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by
Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another
v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC
183.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
5. The judgment passed in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
has been overruled by Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others, reported in
(2020) 8 SCC 129.
6. The petitioner has filed a copy of allotment order dated 08.08.1989 by
which the Executive Engineer, Nagar Sudhar Niyas, Rewa had directed
to Sub Engineer, Project No. 2 to handover the possession of Plot No.
1/42/737, area 1.90 sq.ft. However, petitioner has not filed the copy of
possession letter, therefore, there is nothing on record to suggest that by
virtue of the aforesaid letter, petitioner was given possession of Plot No.
1/42/737, area 1.90 sq.ft. Furthermore, petitioner has not filed a copy of
allotment order by which the aforesaid property was allotted to
petitioner. Merely some letter was written by Executive Engineer to
Sub-Engineer would not confer any title but it would certainly demolish
the case of petitioner. The property in dispute was acquired in the year
1984. It is the case of petitioner that he was in possession of the said
property prior thereto and neither possession was given nor was
compensation paid. If possession was not given and compensation was
not paid, then there was no question of any allotment by the Rewa
Sudhar Niyas, Rewa and there was no question of writing a letter by the
Executive Engineer to Sub Engineer on 10.08.89 to handover the
possession to petitioner. The petitioner has not filed a copy of allotment
No. 7297, dated 08.08.1989 but one thing is clear that on 08.08.1989, the
petitioner was not in possession of the property in dispute. The petitioner
has also not filed the copy of lease deed which should have been
executed by virtue of allotment order dated 08.08.1989. Thus, it is clear
that the contention of the petitioner that he was in possession prior to
acquisition and he has not paid been compensation is misconceived.
Accordingly, it is rejected.
7. So far as the contention of petitioner that even today he is in possession
of the property in dispute is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that
in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others reported
in (2020) 8 SCC 129, if a person is in possession even after the property
is vested in the State, then his possession would be like that of
encroacher. After the property has vested in the State Government, then
the title of land holders ceases and the State becomes the absolute owner
and in possession of the property.
8. The Supreme Court in the case Indore Development Authority (supra)
has held as under:
"258. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with
possession and the statute has provided under
Sections 16 and 17 of the 1894 Act that once
possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an
indefeasible right and vesting is with possession
thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16,
takes place after various steps, such as, notification
under Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice
under Section 9, award under Section 11 and then
possession. The statutory provision of vesting of
property absolutely free from all encumbrances has to
be accorded full effect. Not only the possession vests
in the State but all other encumbrances are also
removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases
and the State becomes the absolute owner and in
possession of the property. Thereafter there is no
control of the landowner over the property. He cannot
have any animus to take the property and to control it.
Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise
trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by
the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of
trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf of the
owner."
9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting
interference.
10. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. The Collector, Rewa is directed to find out as to whether the possession
is of the petitioner or not? If it is found that petitioner is in possession,
then immediate action be taken against him for recovery of possession
and Collector, Rewa shall file a report in that regard latest by 03.07.2024
before the Registry of this Court.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19143AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2024.05.13 19:22:59 +05'30'
JP
