Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nathu Lal vs Mukhya Kariyapalak Adhikari on 24 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19437
1 WA-331-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 331 of 2007
NATHU LAL AND OTHERS
Versus
MUKHYA KARIYAPALAK ADHIKARI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kunji Lal Hardia - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Deputy Advocate General for the respondent
No.2 / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
The appellants / petitioners have preferred this writ appeal against the
order dated 02/01/2007 passed by learned Writ Court in Writ Petition
No.4198/2005, whereby the writ petition filed for the relief of declaring the
lands bearing survey No.184, 184/2 and 184/3 total area 2.614 hectares as
'free land' and for direction to the respondent No.1 - Indore Development
Authority (IDA) for allotting the plot to the petitioners in accordance with
law, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the appellants / petitioners are that they
are the title and possession holder of lands bearing survey Nos.184 area
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19437
2 WA-331-2007
0.871 hectare, 184/2 area 0.871 hectare and 184/3 area 0.872 hectare total
area 2.614 hectares situated at Village Tejpur Gadbadi, Patwari Halka No.10,
Tehsil and District Indore, whereon two houses and a well is situated, has
been acquired for Scheme No.103 of respondent No.1 - IDA vide Land
Acquisition Case No.33 A-82/88-89, wherein award has been passed on
18/11/1992. The respondent No.1 has allotted the plots to land holders and
when some land holders, who have not been allotted plots, have approached
this Court by filing the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No.1011/1993, order
dated 02/07/1994; Writ Petition No.1403/1991, order dated 25/07/2000; and
Writ Petition No.1603/1999, order dated 22/11/2000, the respondents therein
have been directed to allot the plots to the land holders, but the same is not
followed in case of the appellants / petitioners. For this reason, the writ
petition was filed for the reliefs as mentioned aforesaid, has been
dismissed. M.C.C.No.173/2007 was also filed for reviewing the order passed
in Writ Petition, but the same has also been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners submits that as per
Rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Niyam, 1975 (for
short hereinafter referred as, 'Rules of 1975') there is a provision of allotment
of plot to the land holders, whose land has been acquired. Respondent No.1
has allotted the lands to some other persons, but the petitioners are
unreasonably discriminated, which is violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The appellants are residing in the house situated on the
lands, which have been acquired by the respondent No.1 but the same has
not been considered, hence the order passed by the learned Writ Court is bad
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19437
3 WA-331-2007
in law, which requires interference. Learned counsel for the appellants
placed reliance on judgment by the apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Narasimhamurthy reported in 1996 (1) MPWN 66 ; order
passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra and Others Vs. Indore
Development Auhthority and Others (L.P.A. No.234/1998, order dated
19/01/1999); judgment by the apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Smt. Pista Devi and Others reported in AIR 1986 SC 2025 ; and Kolkata
Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and
Others [Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024 dated 16/05/2024] for buttressing the
point that land owners whose lands have been acquired are entitle for
allotment of plots. On these submission, learned counsel for the appellants
urges the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order
granting reliefs as claimed in the writ petition.
4. Respondent No.1 - IDA in reply submitted that a notification under
Section 50(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,
1973 (for short hereinafter referred as, 'Act of 1973') was published in the
official gazette on 08/10/1982. Draft scheme under Section 50(3) of the Act
of 1973 was also published in the official gazette on 05/10/1984 and
thereafter, inviting and deciding the objections under Section 50(4) of the
Act of 1973, the final scheme was published in the official gazette on
16/01/1987. Thereafter, the land was acquired following the due procedure.
Urgency clause contained in Section 17 of the Act of 1973 invoked and
thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1973 was also published
in the official gazette on 19/10/1990 and possession was taken on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19437
4 WA-331-2007
22/12/1990. Possession receipts are marked as Annexure R-1/A to the main
petition, thereafter, award was passed on 18/11/1992 and compensation
amount as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer has also been paid.
Appellants are not entitle for allotment of any land under Rule 19 of the Act
of 1973. No discrimination has been made against the appellants. The order
passed by the learned Writ Court is not suffering from any illegality as it is
passed on due appreciation of rules and material available on record,
therefore, no interference is called for by way of this appeal. The appeal is
misconceived, has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at bar by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6 . It is not in dispute that on the land acquired, a scheme has been
developed and plots have been allotted to the persons opted for that as per
Rules. Looking to the possession receipts (Annexure R-1/A) the arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellants that they are in possession of land is
untenable. From perusal of the judgments as relied upon by the appellants, it
is apparent that it is not mandatory that a person whose land has been
acquired will be allotted plot in his favour. Land acquired cannot be released
automatically as the appellants have no right to ask for its release on their
whims and surmises. It is upon the respondent / IDA that how much land
they need and on which portion of the land they need to develop a scheme.
7. No writ can be issued compelling the respondents for allotting the
plots in favour of the appellants / land owners. From perusal of the
judgments / orders relied upon, it is amply clear that the judgments / orders
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19437
5 WA-331-2007
have been passed in their own peculiar factual matrix, which is not involved
in the present case.
8. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the considered view that no case is made out for interfering with the order
passed by the learned Writ Court, which is based on due appreciation of
evidence available on record.
9. Ex-consequentia, this writ appeal, which is devoid of any substance,
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tej
