Saroj Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 28151 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Saroj Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566


                                                                                1                                             W.P. No.30247/2024


                 IN THE                      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                                           BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
                                                  ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 30247 of 2024
                                                                      SAROJ DUBEY
                                                                               Versus
                                   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
               ............................................................................................................................................
               Appearance:
               Shri Vipin Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
               Shri Lalit Joglekar - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
               ............................................................................................................................................
                                                                          ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus respondent no.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to release the land from the acquisition proceeding as proceedings have already been lapsed due to lapse of 143 years. ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus respondent no.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to act on the representation made by the petitioner forthwith.

iii. Any other writ or direction as the Hon‟ble Court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that khasra Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 total area 4.210 hectares situated at village Ramnagra, Tilwara Ghat, Jabalpur was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566

short „Act, 1894‟). After invoking the provisions of urgency clause as provided under Section 17 of Act, 1894, the Award was also passed by Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) on 18/07/2011 in revenue case No.2/A- 82/08-09. It is submitted that neither the compensation amount has been paid, nor possession has been taken. Even otherwise, the land was acquired for construction of Water Treatment Plant under the Project Uday, whereas the said Plant has already been constructed in khasra No.6 and Project Uday has already been completed some times in the year 2012. The land which was acquired by the respondents was never utilized for the purpose for which the same was acquired, therefore petitioner made an application for release of the land from the acquisition which is still pending. Thus, it is prayed that respondents be directed to release the land from acquisition proceedings as the proceedings have already lapsed on account of non-payment of compensation and non taking of possession.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Counsel for petitioner was directed to point out any provision of Act, 1894 which provides that the land once acquired can be released at a later stage.

5. It was fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that there is no such provision in the Act, 1894.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has held that once the land is acquired, then it would exclusively vest in the State Government and merely because the possession was not taken or compensation was not paid, the acquisition would not lapse and NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566

accordingly, the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 was overruled.

7. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi & Ors. by judgment dated 24/02/2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.1300/2023 has held as under:-

"3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) which has been heavily relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has beens specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:--

"365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] 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 [(2018) 3 SCC 412], 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 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566

cannot prevail, in the light of 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 on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings.

Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 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 the 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 the 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 the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566

land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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 2013 Act has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 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). The landowners 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 the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 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 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 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566

of the 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 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned 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 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 court to invalidate acquisition."

4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the entire land i.e., 15 bigha 18 biswa are deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be no deemed lapse with NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51566

respect to the acquisition proceedings of the lands in question under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Consequently, the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner(s) before the High Court stands dismissed. However, while allowing the present appeal, it is observed that if the original land owners/recorded owners or the person(s) interested are not paid the compensation, they may be paid the compensation with respect to the lands in question in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and their prayer(s) be considered in accordance with law and on their own merits."

8. Considering the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) as well as in the case of Jai Prakash Tyagi (supra), this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out for release of the land from acquisition in which even Award has been passed.

9. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M.