Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yaduvendra Yadav And Ors. vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 5 ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
1 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 09th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7124 of 2013
KESAR SINGH
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 5844 of 2013
DIRECTOR PREMSHRI PRIME PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.INDORE
AND 4 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.S. Bedi, on behalf of Shri Ajay Asudani, advocates for the
petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
2 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 6631 of 2013
RAMESH CHOUDHARY AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 03 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6633 of 2013
BABULAL AND 02 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND 03 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7120 of 2013
NIRMAL NAREDI AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
3 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 7187 of 2013
YADUVENDRA YADAV AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7193 of 2013
ASHOK AIREN AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Chitale - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Yogesh Mittal -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7194 of 2013
PRAKASH CHANDRA AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
4 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 7196 of 2013
SATYENDRA
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7198 of 2013
JITENDRA YADAV AND ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7200 of 2013
SMT. SUDHA DHOOT
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
5 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 7202 of 2013
BHAGWAN SINGH
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7205 of 2013
BABU SINGH
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7207 of 2013
BANE SINGH
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
6 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 7213 of 2013
MALKHAN SINGH
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Mittal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7332 of 2013
SHANKARLAL
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 7336 of 2013
SHRENIK KUMAR JAIN AND 2 OTHERS AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Dalal- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
7 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 7901 of 2013
JITENDRA
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8444 of 2013
SMT.AHILYABAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8449 of 2013
BAHADUR SINGH AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
8 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 8454 of 2013
MEHTAP
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8516 of 2013
RAMGOPAL AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8833 of 2013
MAHENDRA
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
9 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 8882 of 2013
PAWANSINGH AND 2 OTHERS AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8885 of 2013
RAMIBAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 8886 of 2013
PUNAJI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
10 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 8924 of 2013
SHAKUNTALABAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 9048 of 2013
GENDALAL
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 9693 of 2013
NARAYAN AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
11 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 10319 of 2013
RASHMI ANAND
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 10321 of 2013
HUKUM SINGH
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 10322 of 2013
SHAKUNTALA BAI
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
12 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 10324 of 2013
PAWAN SINGH AND 6 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 10326 of 2013
PAWAN SINGH AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 10327 of 2013
SHIVNARAYAN AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
13 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 10328 of 2013
PRADEEP AND 2 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 10329 of 2013
SMT. JYOTSANA AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 10330 of 2013
BANE SINGH AND 3 ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 5 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma -
Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
14 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 12454 of 2013
KALYAN SINGH AND ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. HOUSING AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT AND 5 ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav
Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 12837 of 2013
JITENDRA KUMAR THRU. GUARDIAN SMT. ASHABAI
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 12840 of 2013
VIJENDRA KUMAR
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER STATE OF M.P. AND 3 ORS. AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 09-04-2025
16:53:09
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
15 W.P. No.7124/2013 and 41 others.
WRIT PETITION No. 2016 of 2014
JYOTI BABBAR KAPOOR THRU. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT. KUSUMSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vinitijay Hardia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Jain - learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma
- Advocate for the respondent.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - G.A. for respondent/State.
HEARD ON :28.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON :09.04.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
All the petitioners being land owners have filed these present
petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
notification dated 06.04.2012 passed under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "L.A. Act"), orders
dated 22.03.2013 & 30.03.2013 passed under Section 5A of the L.A. Act
and declaration dated 04.04.2013 under Section 6 of the L.A. Act.
2. This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid Writ Petitions.
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in these
petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this
singular order. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No. 7124 of
2013 are taken.
3. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER
3.1. The petitioner is the owner of Lands bearing survey no. 211
part, 215-part, 254/1 part & 255/2 total admeasuring 5 hectares of land
at village Palakhedi, Tehsil Hatod, District Indore. The petitioner got the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
development permission u/s 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha
Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short "Adhiniyam 1973") and all
other statutory permissions for the development of Residential Plots.
3.2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of M.P. through the Principal
Secretary Housing & Environment Department. Respondents No. 2 to 4
are Commissioner, Collector and Upper Collector, Respondents No. 5
and 6 are the Madhya Pradesh Housing & Environment Development
Board (in short: "Housing Board") and its officers. The Housing Board
is constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Graha Nirman Mandal and
Adhosanrachana Vikas Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 (in short
"Adhiniyam 1972") and its officers are appointed under Sections 13 and
14 of Adhiniyam 1972. All the respondents are, amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
3.3. The Executive Engineer, of the "Housing Board", Indore by
letter dated 21.02.2011 proposed to the Deputy Commissioner, Housing
Board, Indore for the acquisition of about 100 Acres of land for
development of "a Residential Scheme" based on Indore Development
Authority's pattern of sharing developed plot area as per 50:50 ratio
between land owners and Housing Board. The Deputy Commissioner,
Housing Board by his letter dated 01.06.2011 requested the Land
Acquisition Officer, Housing Board, Head Office, Bhopal to seek
approval from the Board of Directors of the Housing Board for the
acquisition of land u/s 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in
short L.A Act) and thereafter enter into negotiations with the land
owners for sharing 50% developed plot area each in lieu of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
compensation. Initially, the lands of the petitioner were not included in
the proposed total of 112.62 hectares proposed to be acquired by the
Housing Board.
3.4. That, by letter dated 5/7/2011 the Land Acquisition Officer,
Housing Board, Bhopal directed the Deputy Commissioner, Housing
Board, Indore that acquisition of 112.62 hectares of land situated at
village Palakhedi, subject to the conditions.
3.5. That by letter dated 12/7/2011 the Executive Engineer, Housing
Board, Indore submitted a tentative plan to develop housing scheme in
112.62 hectares of land situated at village Palakhedi in anticipation of
the permissions of the Board of Directors of the Housing Board. The EE
made a request for acquisition of the land to the Collector, Indore as per
oral instructions given by the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board,
Indore to him on 11.07.2011 land of 119.94 instead of 112.62 hectares.
3.6. According to the petitioner vide letter dated 29/8/2011 the
Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board, Indore informed the Land
Acquisition Officer, Housing Board, Bhopal that the brief prepared by
the Indore office for the acquisition of 112.62 hectares of land for
Housing Board's scheme of residential purposes at Palakhedi may please
be placed before the Board of Directors of the Housing Board for taking
its policy decision and its approval and sanction for acquisition of said
land.
3.7. The Collector, Indore cum Ex Officio Deputy Secretary,
Revenue, published notification No. 249/Bhu Arjan/Hatod/2012 dated
22/3/2012 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as
"the LA Act " ) for the acquisition of 152.98 hectares land for residential
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
purposes and published in local Hindi Newspaper 'Patrika' on 30/3/2012
and in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra on 6/4/2012.
3.8. Being aggrieved by notification published u/s 4 LA Act , the
petitioner within limitation filed objections under section 5A of the LA
Act. According to the petitioner, it is admitted position that the housing
scheme has not been framed before initiation of land acquisition
proceedings and taking over possession of the land by the respondents .
The Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Indore submitted a reply to
objections raised by the petitioner under Section 5A of the L.A. Act
before the Land Acquisition Officer, Indore.
3.9 According to the petitioner, none of the objections raised by the
petitioner were replied to by the Executive Engineer, firstly that in law
there is no restriction about requisition of lands which have already been
developed under statutory permissions granted by the public
functionaries, secondly the State of Madhya Pradesh made provision for
planning and development and use of land by framing housing scheme
and the lands of the petitioner in abidance to the permissions of the
Director, Town & Country Planning cannot be acquired by the Housing
Board, even without the existence of any scheme and permission of the
Board of Directors and thirdly before acquisition it mandatorily required
to deposit at least 10% amount of the compensation of the amount likely
to be awarded by the LAO.
3.10. According to the petitioner, the Additional Collector heard the
objections and prepared a detailed report to place it before the Collector,
Indore for approval. The Collector Indore rejected all the objections and
recommended for acquisition of private land to the Revenue
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
Commissioner Indore who has approved the order passed by Collector
under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act. Thereafter, the declaration has been
issued on 30.03.2013 under Section 6 of the L.A. Act by the State
Government for the acquisition of 152.980 hectares of land for
residential purposes. Thereafter, the notification u/s 6 has been
published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 06.04.2012. Hence, these writ
petitions before this Court.
4. While issuing notices in writ petitions this Court has granted the
interim relief for maintaining status-quo regarding the possession of the
land. These petitions have been pending since 2013, and no further
proceedings have taken place by the respondents. The Housing Board
has filed the detailed reply without application for vacating /
modification of interim relief and the State of MP has adopted the reply
filed by the Housing Board.
GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER
5. The petitioners have assailed the impugned order firstly on the
ground that the Board of Director of Housing Board did not finalize the
housing development scheme before going for the acquisition of the
land under the L.A. Act, secondly under section 5-A only the Collector
is empowered to hear and decide the objections and lastly, the 10%
amount has not been deposited before further proceedings under the
L.A. Act. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Land
Acquisition Act has been repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 LA Act").
By virtue of section 24(2) of the 2013 entire proceedings are deemed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
have lapsed as no award has been passed. Alternatively, it is also
submitted that even if these proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 6
of the L.A. Act are liable to be continued, then direction be issued to
pass an award under the provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act i.e.
2013 Act.
REPLY OF THE HOUSING BOARD
6. It is submitted in the reply that looking to the rapid development
in Indore city with an aim to provide housing facilities at reasonable
rates to the middle-income and lower-income groups, a decision for the
development of housing schemes near the Super Corridor was decided
to be undertaken by the Housing Board. The Executive Engineer of the
Board wrote a letter dated 01.06.2011 to the Dy. Housing Commissioner
disclosing intention to acquire the land near about 100 acres by way of
Land Acquisition Act near Village Palakhedi.
7. After obtaining the necessary approval by the Dy.
Commissioner, the Executive Engineer prepared and submitted a
tentative scheme along with the cost estimation to the Dy.
Commissioner. Under the Scheme, it is decided to give 65% of the
residential area would be dedicated to Economically Weaker Sections
(E.W.S.), Lower Income Groups (L.I.G.) and Middle-Income Groups
(M.I.G.) whereas about 30% of the area is dedicated to Higher Income
Groups (H.I.G.). After due deliberations, the land proposed to be
acquired for the implementation of the Board's scheme has been worked
out to be 154.486 hectares, which had been approved by the Land
Acquisition Officer under the orders of the Commissioner of the Board
vide letter dated 08.02.2012. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
requested the Collector to commence the process of acquisition by
issuing a notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act. In
furtherance to this, a notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was
issued by the Collector, Indore dated 22.03.2012 and was published in
the newspaper on 31.03.2012 and in the official gazette on 06.04.2012.
Thereafter, the Collector invited the objections under Section 5-A of the
L.A. Act. The petitioner and others have submitted objections, and all
were heard and rejected by the Collector and approved by the Revenue
Commissioner. The Additional Collector has only prepared the report
but final decision was taken by the Collector Indore. Hence, the
procedure prescribed under the L.A. Act has been followed.
8. It is further pleaded in the reply that the Collector is competent
to publish notification under Section 4 and 6 as authorized by the
Government vide notification dated 15.02.1999 issued by the Revenue
Department, Government of M.P. The State Government also authorized
the Commissioner of the Division as Ex Officio Secretary to the
Government of Madhya Pradesh and Revenue Department to exercise
the power conferred under Sections 5-A and 17 of the said Act. So far as
the formulation of the scheme by the Board is concerned, it is submitted
that the tentative scheme was framed before proceeding in this matter.
The Apex Court as well as this Court has decided that even in the
absence of any prior scheme the acquisition proceedings will not be
vitiated even if no approval of the Board is required before starting the
acquisition proceedings. So far redeposit of the 10% amount of
compensation the matter was placed in the Board Meeting No.224 dated
08.03.2014 regarding payment of 10% compensation in advance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
towards the acquisition and it was resolved that a request be sent to the
Collector to deposit the amount at the time of passing of the award.
9. It is further pleaded in the reply that after due deliberations and
taking into consideration several factors, lastly on the basis of a letter
dated 27.02.2012 the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act
have been issued for the acquisition of 154.743 hectares of land in place
of 112.62 hectares. The objections submitted by the landowners were
under Section 5-A were considered by the Collector Indore . The
answering respondent submitted that the Upper Collector has submitted
a detailed report after hearing the objections to the Collector and
thereafter the Collector after going through the entire submissions and
report, approved the notification under Section 4 and recommended for
issuance of notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. Hence, there is
no substance in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER'S COUNSEL
10. Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P. No.7336/2013 submitted that all the objections raised by the
landowners were heard and considered by the Additional Collector, in
place of the Collector who is a competent authority under the L.A. Act.
After hearing the objections, the Additional Collector submitted a
detailed report to the Collector which has been approved by a non-
speaking order. Hence, the entire acquisition proceedings vitiates as the
Collector did not hear and decide the objections of the landowners. Shri
Vivek Dalal further submitted that till date no possession of the land has
been taken from the petitioner and the Housing Board has not deposited
any amount of compensation with the Land Acquisition Officer which is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
a mandatory condition under the L.A. Act. It is further submitted that
now by virtue of Section 24 of the New Land Acquisition Act, the
proceeding stand lapsed, and the land of the petitioners is liable to be
released.
11. Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in W.P. No.7120/2013, W.P. No.7124/2013, W.P. No.7187/2013, W.P.
No.7194/2013, W.P. No.7196/2013, W.P. No.7198/2013, W.P.
No.7200/2013, W.P. No.7202/2013, W.P. No.7205/2013, W.P.
No.7207/2013 and W.P. No.7213/2013 argued that before initiating the
land acquisition proceedings, the Housing Board ought to have prepared
the housing scheme as required under Section 31 of the "Adhiniyam
1972". Section 3 provides the establishment of the Housing Board by
the State Government by issuing a notification which shall be the body
corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to
acquire, hold and dispose of property.
12. According to Shri Mittal, learned counsel that as per section 31
of the Adhiniyam 1972, it is the duty of the Board to undertake Housing
and Development Schemes. As per language of Section 31, the Board
may incur expenditure and undertake works in any area to which this
Adhiniyam applies for the framing and execution of schemes such as
Housing and Development Schemes, therefore, the Board of directors
were required to frame the housing schemes before proceeding further.
Under Section 33 of Adhiniyam, it is for the Board to make a decision of
the acquisition to get a land for housing scheme by way of acquisition or
purchase or exchange or otherwise, therefore, since no such scheme was
framed by the Board, therefore, the Executing Engineer or other Officers
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
could not have sent a request to acquire the land by way of land
acquisition. Section 49 of the Adhiniyam 1972 also provides that the
Board may also take steps for the compulsory requisition of any land or
any interest therein required for the execution of a housing scheme in
the manner provided in the L.A. Act to be framed by the Board.
13. It is further argued by Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned counsel that
the Housing Board has wrongly proceeded without preparation of the
housing scheme, and without depositing the money before the Land
Acquisition Officer. The petitioners submitted all these objections
before the Collector under Section 5-A of L.A Act but no para wise
reply was given by the Housing Board to meet out all the objections.
This Court by way of interim relief has only stayed the possession but
the respondents did not proceed further to complete the acquisition
proceedings, hence due to the repeal of the L.A. Act now all the
proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed. In alternate it is submitted
by the learned counsel that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the
proceedings under later so far are as per law and liable to be continued
then the petitioners shall be entitled to get the value of the land on the
basis of the current market rate of the land in question.
14. Shri Hardia, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.
6631/2013, W.P. No. 6633/2013, W.P. No.7332/2013, W.P.
No.7901/2013, W.P. No.8444/2013, W.P. No.8449/2013, W.P.
No.8454/2013, W.P. No.8516/2013, W.P. No.8882/2013, W.P.
No.8885/2013, W.P. No.8886/2013, W.P. No.8924/2013, W.P.
No.9048/2013, W.P. No.12837/2013, W.P. No.12840/2013 and W.P.
No.2016/2013 adopted the aforesaid arguments submitted by Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
Yogesh Mittal and Shri Vivek Dalal learned counsel. Mr. Hardia learned
counsel added that the land acquisition proceedings were liable to be
concluded within two years from the date of issuance of notification
under Sections 4 and 6 and if the award is not passed within 2 years,
then fresh proceedings for acquisition are liable to be started. In support
of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Single
Bench in the case of Dinesh Prasad vs. State of M.P. reported in (2000)
II M.P.W.N. 89.
15. Shri V.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.
No.8833/2013, W.P. No.10319/2013, W.P. No.10321/2013, W.P.
No.10322/2013, W.P. No.10324/2013, W.P. No.10326/2013, W.P.
No.10327/2013, W.P. No.10328/2013, W.P. No.10329/2013, W.P.
No.10330/2013 and W.P. No.12454/2013 submitted that the objections
send by the petitioner were received in the office of the Collector but
same were not considered, hence for these petitioners the order passed
u/s 5-A of the L.A. Act will not apply hence the land be released from
acquisition.
16. Shri A.K. Chitale learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner in W.P. No.7193/2013 submitted written submissions that the
notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act does not specify any public
purpose of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, it mentions
SARVAJANIK PRAYOJAN AWASIYA PRAYOJAN OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT according to the notification. Consequently, the
notification under Section 4 cannot be invoked for any public purpose.
The provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 were not followed by the
Housing Board and therefore, the land of the petitioner and other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
petitioners cannot be compulsorily acquired by the Housing Board.
17. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that section 34
the Adhiniyam, 1972 says that whenever the Board is of the opinion that
it is expedient to provide building sites in any area, the Board may
frame a land development scheme. Shri Chitale learned senior counsel
further submitted that no reasons have been given by the respondents as
to why the scheme was framed in advance before proceeding for
acquisition of private land. It is well settled that the word "may" does
not imply that the main provision can be blatantly ignored.
18. It is further submitted learned senior counsel that the Housing
Board is a legal entity distinct, independent and separate from its
officers. The Housing Board had not taken any statutory steps for
making any scheme for compulsorily acquiring the land of the
petitioner. The Government and an undertaking of the Government such
as the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board are distinct and separate legal
entities, and an act of the Government cannot be regarded as an act of
the Housing Board. It is further submitted that the objections under
Section 5-A of the L.A. Act have not been dealt with or considered by
the respondents fully. The notification under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act based on the rejection of the objections under Section 5-
A is therefore without jurisdiction. The declaration under Section 6 has
been published by the State on the basis of approval given in a
mechanical manner without application of mind, without recording the
satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land is needed for
public purpose. The report of the L.A.O. and the Collector has been
endorsed mechanically, which shows the recklessness with which the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
entire issue of acquisition has been dealt with by the Commissioner by
simply appending his signature on the note prepared by L.A.O. cum
Upper Collector and Collector even without summoning the records of
proceedings under Section 5-A of L.A Act and without considering the
objections raised by the affected landowners. The declaration under
Section 6 is therefore clearly in contravention of the settled ratio of law
laid by the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh Brar & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 403.
19. In support of his contention, learned Sr. Counsel heavily placed
reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Kapil
Mehra v. Union of India reported in (2015) 2 SCC 262, Secy. Ministry
of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Govt. of India vs. Cipla Ltd., reported in
(2003)7 SCC 1, Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Maddula Ratnavalli
reported in (2007) 6 SCC 81, Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Girdharlal
Motilal reported in AIR 1969 SC 267, Apex Court in the Three Judge
Bench in the case of CCE vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. reported in (2004)
1 SCC 597, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of
Bihar reported in (1964) 6 SCR 885.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL.
20. Per contra, Shri Sunil Jain learned Sr. Advocate appearing on
behalf of the Housing Board contended that as per definition of 3(c) of
the L.A. Act, the "Collector" means the Collector of a district, including
any officer specially appointed by the appropriate Government to
perform the functions of a Collector. It is further submitted that under
Section 5-A every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the
Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
opportunity of being heard and shall after hearing all such objections
make a report containing his recommendation on the objection for the
decision of the Government and the decision of the appropriate
Government on the objections shall be final.
21. It is further submitted by Shri Jain learned senior counsel that by
virtue of Section 49 of Adhiniyam 1972, the Board may also take steps
for the compulsory acquisition of the land for execution of a housing
scheme in the manner provided in the L.A. Act and the same shall be
deemed to be an acquisition for public purpose. It is further submitted
that the plan for the scheme was prepared and thereafter, the process
was taken up for the acquisition of the private land. Framing of the
scheme by the Board in advance is not necessary as held by the Apex
Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board and Another vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 933 . As argued by learned
senior counsel, so far as the deposit of compensation amount is
concerned, the Board has decided to send a request to the Collector to
deposit the amount at the time of passing of the award. On this issue
learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the Division Bench
judgment in the case of Siyaram and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.
reported in 1992 (2) M.P.L.J 714 that the acquisition of the land for a
residential scheme is a public purpose and, therefore, prays for the
dismissal of the writ petitions.
APPRICIATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
22. The first contention of the petitioners is that under the
Adhiniyam of 1972 it is mandatory for the Board to prepare a housing
scheme before intuition of the proceedings for acquisition of the land. It
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
is an admitted position that the Board did not prepare any scheme and
only on the basis of the letter written by the Executive Engineer the
acquisition proceedings were started. Shri Jain, learned Senior Counsel
argued that it is not mandatory for the Board to prepare a scheme before
proceeding for land acquisition. After completion of acquisition
proceedings, the scheme can be finalized by the Board. The State
Government enacted the Adhiniyam 1972 to provide the Housing Board
in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of taking measures and
satisfying the need of housing accommodation. The Board as defined
under Section 2(b) means a "M.P. Housing Board" which is now known
as "M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board already
referred to as "Housing Board" herein above. As per Section 4 "the
Board consists of Chairman, Secretary and other members appointed
and nominated by the State Government". As per Section 13(1) "There
shall be a Housing Commissioner to the Board who shall be the
principal executive officer of the Board and subject to the overall
control of the Board and the Chairman, all officers and servants of the
Board shall be subordinate to him". The Board possess power to appoint
a Chief Engineer, a Chief Accounts Officer, an Estate Manager etc.
under Section 14.
23. Chapter IV deals with the "Conduct of Business of Board and its
Committee". Chapter VI provides a "Housing Scheme" and as per
Section 31, it is a duty of the Board to undertake housing scheme.
Section 32 defines the "Power of Board to undertake a housing
scheme". Under the Housing Scheme, the Board shall have a power to
acquire, purchase, exchange or otherwise of the property necessary for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
execution of the scheme. Apart from the other work provided under sub-
section (a) to (e) of Section 33. Section 31 of the Adhiniyam 1972 is
reproduced below:-
"31. Duty of Board to undertake Housing Schemes - Subject
to the provisions of this Act and subject to control of the State
Government, the Board may incur expenditure and undertake
works in any area to which this Act applies for the framing
and execution of such housing schemes as it may consider
necessary from time to time or as may be entrusted to it by the
State Government."
24. "Housing scheme" is defined under sub-section (9) of Section 2
according to which "Housing Scheme" made under this Act as well as
and development scheme prepared under section 34. Section 31 says
that "subject to the provision of this Act and subject to the control of the
State Government, the Board may incur expenditure and undertake
works in any area to which this Act applies for framing and execution of
such housing schemes as it may consider necessary from time to time.
Therefore, the Board has a power to frame and execute the housing
scheme. As per the scheme so prepared, the Board, the Chairman and
the Housing Commissioner has a power to accord approval to estimate
for incurring expenditure of any work. Section 25 gives power to the
Board to decide in respect of the budget, availability of the funds or
other provisions of the Act in respect of any single work or scheme for
carrying out by the Board, therefore, there is no specific provision under
Chapter V and Chapter VI which mandates that housing scheme has to
be first prepared by the Board and thereafter put to execution. The
Commissioner of the Board and the Housing Commissioner both have
power to grant approval for execution of any scheme under the Act for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
the Housing Board is established.
25. In the case of Karnataka Housing Board (supra) the
constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that Section 33(2) of the
KHB Act, contains no condition, either expressly or by necessary
implication, that before a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act
is issued proposing to acquire the land, a sanctioned and published
housing scheme should be in force. Para 24, 25 and 26 are reproduced
below:-
25. A conjoint reading of the afore-extracted provisions of KHB Act will
unfold the duties of the KHB as to undertake housing schemes and land
development schemes as it may consider necessary from time to time or
as may be entrusted to it by the State Government. What are the matters
to be provided for by housing schemes and land development schemes
are mentioned respectively under Sections 18 and 18A. Going by
Section 2(n) „programme‟ means the annual housing programme and
land development programme prepared by KHB under Section 19.
Section 19 mandates that before the first day of December in each year,
KHB shall prepare and forward a programme, a budget for the next
year and a schedule of the staff of officers and servants already
employed and to be employed during the next year, to the State
Government. As per the said section, the said programme shall contain
such particulars of the housing schemes, land development schemes and
labour housing schemes which it proposes to execute whether in part or
whole during the next year as may be prescribed. Under Section 20 the
State Government may sanction the programme, the budget and the
schedule of the staff of officers and servants forwarded to it with such
modifications as it deems fit. As per Section 21, the State Government
shall publish the programme sanctioned by it under Section 20 in the
official Gazette. Section 22 permits submission of supplementary
programme and budget in respect of which a programme and budget
had been sanctioned under Section 20 and in the eventuality of
submission of such a supplementary programme and budget the
provisions of Sections 20 and 21 would apply.
26. Section 23 confers power on the board to vary any programme or
any part thereof included in the programme sanctioned by the State
Government, at any time. The bare perusal of the proviso thereunder
would reveal that it is not an unfettered power. Going by the proviso, no
such variation shall be made if it involves an expenditure in excess of
20 per cent of the amount as originally sanctioned for the execution of
any housing scheme or land development scheme included in such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
programme or affects its scope or purpose. Thus a bare perusal of the
provisions under Sections 17 to 23, contained in Chapter-III of the KBH
Act, would reveal that they deal with duties of KHB to undertake
housing schemes and land development schemes, matters to be included
in such schemes, preparation and submission of annual housing
programme and land development programme, budget and
establishment schedule and such other procedures to be followed
ultimately unto the sanctioning of the programme and also the power of
KHB to make variance of sanctioned programme and its limit.
27. Going by the scheme of the KHB Act, it deals with the subject of
execution of housing schemes, land development schemes and labour
housing schemes under Section 24. Bearing in mind the provisions
under Sections 18-23 we will consider the scope and purport of Section
24 of the KHB Act. A careful scrutiny of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of
Section 24 would bring forth their distinct differences. Section 24(1)
prescribes that after the programme has been sanctioned and published
by the State Government the board shall, subject to the provisions of
Section 23, proceed to execute the housing scheme, land development
scheme and labour housing scheme included in the programme. Thus,
Section 24(1) states in unequivocal terms as to when the KHB shall
proceed to execute the housing schemes, land development schemes and
labour housing schemes included in the programme. Indisputably, in
terms of the said statutory mandate KHB could proceed to execute any
of the aforesaid schemes included in the programme only after the
sanction and publication of the programme wherein the scheme
concerned is included.
The language and the entire Adhiniyam 1972 is identical to the
provisions of the KHB Act, therefore, the aforesaid contention of
learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners is hereby rejected.
26. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the objections submitted to the notification under
Section 4 have not been decided by the Collector as required under sub-
section 2 of Section 5A of the L.A. Act. It is correct that after issuance
of the notification under Section 4 all the landowners/ petitioners
submitted objections in writing before the Collector, but the Additional
Collector heard all the objections, prepared a report and placed before
the Collector Indore. The learned Collector after going through the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
report has rejected all the objections and granted approval to the
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. Thereafter, the matter was
placed before the Commissioner who has also granted approval. Section
5-A is reproduced below for ready reference : -
"5A. Hearing of objections. - (1) Any person interested in any land
which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being
needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a Company
may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the
notification], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the
locality, as the case may be.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the
Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an
opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorized by
him in this behalf] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such
objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks
necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been
notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in
respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate
Government, containing his recommendations on the objections,
together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the
decision of that Government. The decision of the [appropriate
Government] on the objections shall be final.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be
interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in
compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.]".
27. As per sub-section (2) of Section 5A "every objection under
sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the
Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard in person
or by any person authorized by him or by pleaders". It further provides
that after hearing all such objections and after making enquiry, the
collector shall prepare its report containing his recommendations on the
objections and shall place before the government for decision and the
decision taken by the appropriate Government on the objections shall be
final. As per Section 5-A the competent authority is the Collector,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
therefore, it is for the Collector to hear the objections and submit a
report with its recommendations to the appropriate Government.
28. It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to
be done in a particular manner that the Act has to be done in that manner
alone. No such notification has been brought on report by the
respondents whereby the State Government has delegated power to the
Additional Collector to invite the objections and hear the person
concerned. It is also settled law that in exercise of quasi judicial power
as well as judicial power it is for an authority or a Judge who has to
decide the matter should give hearing to the parties concerned. The
arguments cannot be heard by one the competent authority and decided
by other. It is mandatory and statutory requirement for the Collector to
give a personal hearing to the person concerned, make enquiry and
submit a report with its recommendation. There cannot be a delegation
of authority or entrustment to the subordinate officers like Additional
Collector/ Dy. Collector to hear the objections, prepare a report and
submit for approval. Therefore, the objections under Section 5-A were
not heard and decided by the competent authority. After grant of
approval by the Commissioner, the notification under Section 6 has been
issued which is also liable to be quashed.
29. The petitioner immediately rushes to this Court and by way of
interim relief, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo in respect
of the possession of the land and the said interim order is still in
operation. The Housing Board has not filed any application for vacating
or modification the stay. This Court has not stayed further land
acquisition proceedings, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer ought
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
to have proceeded for passing the award in this matter. If there was any
confusion, the respondent could have sought a leave from this Court for
proceedings in the matter for passing final order. This Court by interim
relief has only protected the possession but land acquisition proceedings
were not stayed. Hence now more than 13 years have been lapsed and
land acquisition has not been completed by the respondents.
30. Despite several opportunities when the State of M.P. did not file
the reply, the Court had to direct for personal presence of Collector.
Finally, the reply was filed in the year 2017 i.e. after four years on
17.01.2017. Thereafter, these petitions were admitted for final hearing.
Now more than 12 years have been passed, the respondents have not
passed any final award under the L.A. Act.
31. Now it is required to consider by this court whether at this stage
still the Hosing Board should be given opportunity to continue with the
land acquisition proceedings which are held up since last 12 years. As
held above, the objections submitted by the petitioners have not been
decided by the Collector under Section 5A which vitiates the
proceedings and the orders dated 22.03.2013 & 30.03.2013 passed under
Section 5A & 6 of the L.A. Act are liable to be set aside.
32. Admittedly, the LA Act is not in force now, which has been
repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f.
01.01.2014. More than 12 years have been passed neither the final
award has been passed nor the possession of the land has been taken
from the petitioner by the Housing Board. It is also important to mention
that till date the Board has also not deposited the 10% of the amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
the compensation. The housing scheme has also not been finalized till
date therefore, except notification under Section 4, no steps have been
taken in this case.
33. The similar issue came for consideration before the Apex Court
in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph VAZ and Others vs.
Government of Karnataka and Other reported in 2025 INSC 3 recently
decided on 02.01.2025. Dealing with almost similar situation which
these parties are facing, the Apex Court held that "there is no fault on
the part of the landowners and they are being deprived of their land for
almost 22 years. The Karnataka Board did not take any step for
acquiring the acquisition proceedings for 22 years. The Apex Court has
observed that in the present case it can clearly be seen that there is no
delay which can be attributed to the appellants in not getting
compensation, but it was on account of the lethargic attitude of the
officers of the State/ KIADB that the appellants were deprived of
compensation. Only notices were issued in the contempt proceedings,
then only the SLAO passed an award on 22nd April 2019 taking
guideline values prevailing in the year 2011 for determining the market
value of the acquired land. The Apex Court has held that the High Court
in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to have
done the complete justice instead of relegating the appellants to again
go through the rigors determination by SLAO".
34. The Apex Court has also observed that if on account of the
inordinate delay in paying the compensation and thereby depriving the
constitutional right to the appellants under Article 300-A, the land
acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed and the only recourse
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
available to the State/KIADB to issue a fresh acquisition notification
under the 2013 L.A. Act. However, the Apex Court in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 142 finds it appropriate in the interest of
justice directing SLAO to determine the compensation on the basis of
market value prevailing as on 22nd April 2019 because in the said case,
the possession of the land was taken and award was passed but in the
present cases factual situations are surmised as under :-
(1) From the very beginning, housing scheme was not prepared and
approved by the Commissioner as well as by the Housing Board.
(2) After issuance of show cause notice under Section 4, objections were
not decided by the Collector under Section (2) of Section 5A.
(3) The land owners are still in possession and same has not been taken
by the Housing Board.
(4) The Land Acquisition Officer has not passed any award after
issuance of notification under Section 6.
(5) The Housing Board has not shown any interest in this project since
last 13 years. These writ petitions are pending from 2012 and no
application for vacating stay or modification of stay has been filed by
the Housing Board to proceed in this matter or to get this petition
decided early.
(6) 10% amount of the compensation has also not been deposited.
(7) The Land acquisition award has not been passed by the LAO till
date.
(8) Most importantly, the Land Acquisition Act has been repealed by
new Act, 2013 of LA.
35. Therefore, now the respondents/the Housing Board cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9715
permitted to further proceed in this matter. If they desire, they may come
up with the new housing scheme under the provisions of the Adhiniyam,
1972.
36. As held above, the petitioners have been deprived of their land
since last more than 12 years and the Board has not shown any interest
during 13 years to proceed further in this matter. Not a single application
has been filed for vacating stay or for urgent hearing of this petition. The
State has not filed the separate return but adopted the return filed by the
Housing Board that to when this Court directed for personal presence of
the Collector, therefore, for more than 13 years the petitioners are being
deprived of to use their land. Hence, they are entitled for compensation
of Rs. 25,000/- per petitioner with a liberty to them to claim
compensation or damages by way of civil suit.
37. Accordingly, notification dated 06.04.2012 passed under Section
4 of the "L.A. Act", orders dated 22.03.2013 & 30.03.2013 passed under
Section 5A of the L.A. Act and declaration dated 04.04.2013 under
Section 6 of the L.A. Act and land acquisition proceedings initiated by
the Housing Board are here by quashed and all these writ petitions are
hereby allowed.
Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the record of connected
writ petitions.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Vatan
