Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Dilip Birani on 29 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
1 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
WRIT APPEAL No. 661 of 2007
DILIP BIRANI
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri Aayush Gupta
appearing on behalf of Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
.............................................................................................................................
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 147 of 2008
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Versus
DILIP BIRANI AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
appellants/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 29-07-2025
18:15:46
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
2 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
Shri Ashok Kumar Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri Aayush Gupta
appearing on behalf of Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 24/07/2025
Pronounced on : 29/07/2025
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi
1) These intra court appeals under Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by
the appellant - Dilip Birani against the order dated 16.11.2007 passed in W.P.
No.4599/2007 whereby the Writ Petition has been disposed of with the
following directions:-
"In these circumstances, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant a
liberty to the petitioner to file an objection petition before the
Land Acquisition Collector, Indore, raising such objections as
are available to him in accordance with law, to show that his
land was liable to be excluded from acquisition. However, the
petitioner would not be permitted to raise any objection with
regard to the existence of the public purpose. If any such
objections are filed by the petitioner within a period of three
weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received,
then the Land Acquisition Collector, Indore, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall take an
appropriate decision thereupon in accordance with law. If the
objections filed by the petitioner are found to be meritorious,
then an appropriate decision, in such circumstances, shall be
taken withdrawing the acquisition proceedings, but in case,
the said objections are found to be without basis, then the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
3 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act shall remain
intact and in such a situation, the award pronounced qua the
acquisition of the land of the petitioner shall also remain
operative."
2) Regard being had to the similitude of controversy involved in the
aforementioned appeals, they are being heard analogously and disposed of by
this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Appeal
No.661/2007 are taken.
3) Facts of the case are that appellant was owner of the land bearing
survey Nos. 50/1/3/1, 50/1/3/3 and 50/1/3/4, total area 1.821 hectare situated at
village Panchderiya, Tehsil - Sanver, Dist. Indore. The aforesaid land was
proposed to be acquired for construction of new Central Jail, Indore along with
staff quarters in the year 2004. The draft notification was prepared on
28.05.2004 after processing the matter for a quite long period. Ultimately, a
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred for short „the Act‟) was issued on 16.02.2007 wherein provisions under
Section 17 of the Act were invoked dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-
A of the Act. Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, notifying that
the land in question stood acquired, was issued on 13.04.2007. Appellant has
challenged the aforesaid acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition by raising
specific challenge that invoking of the urgency provisions under Clause 17 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
4 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
the Act was wholly unwarranted and it has deprived the appellant of his right to
file objections under Section 5-A of the Act which vitiates the entire
proceedings. Reply was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 and separate reply
was filed by respondent No. 5 by taking preliminary objections. It has been
claimed that after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued,
notice under Section 9 of the Act was also issued to the appellant requiring him
to raise his claim with regard to the compensation payable for the acquired land.
Appellant joined the aforesaid proceedings and ultimately an award was passed
on 24.07.02007 assessing the market value of the land in question. Physical
possession of the land has also been taken by respondents No.1-4 and handed
over to respondent No.5 for raising the construction on 21.08.2007. Appellant
has denied the factum of the actual physical possession has been taken from him
while filing a rejoinder to the replies. In the rejoinder, appellant has also
contested the knowledge of the passing of the award claiming further that award
was sent to his counsel Mr. Kothari, who at no point of time informed him about
passing of the award. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned, learned Writ Court passed the impugned order which is under
challenge in these writ appeals.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned
order mainly on two grounds:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
5 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
(a) Point of taking of physical possession from the appellant
has not been proved and that has not been properly
appreciated by the Writ Court.
(b) Invoking of urgency Clause for staff quarters was not
appropriate and bad-in-law.
5) To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance upon para 17 to 22 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Devendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2011)
9 SCC 551, Dev Sharan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2011) 4
SCC 769, State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. A. Mohammed Yousef & Ors.
reported in (1991) 4 SCC 224 (relevant para - 11), Garg Woolen Private
Limited vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 784 (relevant para -
11 to 13), National Thermal Power Corporation Limited vs. Mahesh Dutta &
Ors. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 339 and also placed reliance on the judgment in
the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Savitri Mohan
(dead) through legal representatives & Ors. reported in (2016) 13 SCC 210. On
the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel urges the Court for allowing the
appeal by setting aside the impugned order and grant the relief as claimed in
Writ Petition for quashment of Notification dated 16.02.2007 under Section 4(1)
r/w Section 17(1) of the Act, as referred in proceeding dated 02.03.2007, as well
as in M.P.C.G. on 13.04.2007 under Section 6 of the Act, as referred in the
proceeding dated 26.04.2007 and the entire land acquisition proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
6 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
6) Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that staff
quarters are not separate from the jail premises therefore for construction of the
same urgency Clause was invoked, hence, contention in this regard is not
tenable and the judgments relied upon by the appellant are also not applicable as
having been passed in peculiar facts of those cases. He further submits that after
taking actual physical possession it has been handed over to respondent No.4
who has constructed jail premises, therefore, appellant is not entitled for any
relief as claimed. He further submits that Writ Petition should have been
dismissed in toto. The direction as contained in the last one paragraph of the
impugned order was not required. On these contentions, learned counsel for
the respondents/State prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant.
7) Heard and considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8) It is not in dispute that the appellant was owner and possession
holder of the disputed land which was acquired for the purpose of construction
of jail by invoking urgency Clause. The construction of staff quarters and other
ancillary structures is mandatory for constructing the jail premises, therefore,
the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that urgency Clause could not
have been invoked for constructing staff quarters for the jail is misconceived.
Judgments relied upon by the appellant‟s side do not come to rescue the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
7 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
appellant as they have been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of those
cases. Process where jail premises have been constructed and the land acquired
cannot be segregated. The whole process of acquisition cannot be reversed on
technical grounds.
9) As far as contention with regard to not taking the possession from
the appellant is concerned, is also of no avail as admittedly the possession of the
land acquired was taken by respondents No.1 to 4 and the same was handed
over to respondent No.5 for construction work which has been near about
completed and become irreversible. Land Acquisition Officer has issued
instructions on 14.08.2007 (Annexure R/17) for taking possession of the land
and the copy of same was also sent to Superintendent of Central Jail and to the
land owner appellant Dilip S/o Multansingh who refused to accept the same on
17.08.2007. The note with regard to the aforesaid was appended to Annexure
R/17. By constitution Bench of the Apex Court in case of Indore Development
Authority vs. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has put to
rest the issue with regard to taking a possession and tendering of compensation
by holding that where a person has been tendered the compensation as provided
under Section 31(1) of the 1984 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. Similarly taking of possession by preparing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:19430
8 WA-661-2007 & 147-2008
panchnama has also found approval of the Court, admittedly in the present case,
the appellant is not in possession of the land where on construction of Central
Jail for the purpose of which the land was acquired has been completed. No
exception with regard to taking of possession can be taken at present stage.
10) In the light of aforesaid, this Court is considered view that the
appeal is devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently,
the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soumya
