Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
Regard being had to the similitude of facts and reliefs, all these 3 petitions
are being disposed off by the common order.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition to constitute a Committee
ommittee to examine
change in alignment of the road RE
RE-2 (Bhuri Tekri - Nemawar - RTO) Indore and
to direct the respondents to construct the said road as per Indore Master Plan of
2021. They have prayed for quashing of notices issued by the Indore Municipal
Corporation to remove their dwelling houses without legally acquiring the same and
without following due process of law.
3. This Court by order dated 12/12/2024 directed the "High Power Committee"
No.16387/2024 No.8986/2023 No.6673/2022
who have
pattas but
have taken
possession
of the flats
allotted by
respondents
who have
taken
possession
of the flats
allotted to
them
who have
valid pattas
but have not
taken
possession
of the flats
allotted to
them.
who do not
have any
pattas ahd
have not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
taken
possession
of the flats
allotted to
them
5 Petitioners 0 0 16 16
who have
pattas but
have not
been allotted
any flats
because their
constructions
are not
coming in
way RE-2
road and
therefore
their names
are not
included in
the survey
list
6 Petitioners 0 1 9 10
who do not
have any
valid pattas
and have not
been allotted
any flats
since their
constructions
are not
coming in
the way RE-
2 road and
therefore
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
their names
are not
included in
the survey
list
4. According to the above Chart, the petitioners whose
se names are mentioned
against Column Nos.3,4&6,, they do not have any right to continue or to prosecute
the petitions as no cause of action survives.
5. Counsel for the petitioners were grante
grantedd time to verify the same and to
submit their Chart of the status of the petitioners in response to the above Chart
C
about the status of the petitioners.
titioners. In compliance to the said order dated
date 24/4/2025,
the petitioners filedd their chart in these 3 petitions.
6. WP No.6673/2023. In respect of 26 petitioners, the petition has been
withdrawn and in respect of 24 petitioners the petition has not been pressed. Only
in respect of following 33 petitioners, the petition survives for arguments. Their
details are mentioned as under:
under:-
S.No Name of Petitioners Patta
1 Mamta Bai W/o Meherban Singh Patta (30)
2 Devka Bai W/o Ramesh Chandra Patta (182)
3 Nathuram S/o Raghunath Patta (43)
4 Kusum Bai Mehra W/o Mahesh Patta (50)
5 Sonam Masaliya W/o Jitendra Patta (55)
6 Khuman Singh S/o Dule Singh Patta (59)
7 Dayavati W/o Anjali Kumar Patta (63)
8 Babu Singh Bnaskar S/o Ganesh Patta (70)
9 Sundar Bai Yadav W/o Balra Yadav Patta (74)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
10 Dinesh Kaushik S/o Sohanlal Patta (90)
11 Prem Bai W/o Late Ramesh Patta (94)
12 Leela Kishan S/o Jassiram Patta (103)
13 Hiralal Chauhan S/o Amar Singh Patta (108)
14 Parli Bai W/o Atmaram Patta (New Document)
15 Prakash S/o Devi Singh Patta (116)
16 Maya Mehra W/o Manohar Mehra Patta (132)
17 Seema Bhilala W/o Gambhir Patta (137)
18 Sunita W/o Kailash Patta (141)
19 Changan Sisodiya S/o Devi Singh Patta (158)
Balai
20 Jagdish S/o Bheraji Patta (167)
21 Santosh Bhil S/o Mansingh Patta (176)
22 Rumal Singh Dawar S/o Jyoti Singh Patta (203)
23 Hariram Jatav S/o Chaganlal Patta (248)
24 Manisha W/o Sagar Singh Rudhava Patta (256)
25 Rupsingh Bhargav S/o Chaganlal Patta (258)
26 Sangeeta Khandelwal W/o Narayan Patta (270)
Khandelwal
27 Dharmendra Lodhi S/o Majbut Singh Patta (279)
28 Vinay Shrivastava S/o Dinesh Prasad Patta (292)
29 Kapil Waskel S/o Balkrishna Waskel Patta (297)
30 Rajeesh Mansore S/o Dayaram Patta (300)
Mansore
31 Manohar Sille S/o Shivram Patta (311)
32 Hariprasad S/o Gangaram Patta (326)
33 Prakash S/o Devsingh Bariya Patta (353)
7. In respect of other petitioners either the petition has been withdrawn or the
same is not pressed because they were not affected by the construction of the road.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
8. W.P No.16387/2024.. As per the C
Chart
hart prepared by the petitioners there are
total 22 petitioners and out of 22, 13 have withdrawn the said petition. Therefore,
the petition survives only in respect of following 9 petitioners:-
Sr.No. Name of Petitioner Patta
1 Dilip Bacha S/o Nemaji Bach
Bacha Patta (53)
2 Kailash Solanki S/o Dayaram Patta (56)
Solanki
3 Dilip Goyal S/o Late Kishor Goyal Patta (New Document)
4 Shakuntala W/o Sajan Singh Patta (65)
Makwana
5 Akhil Gupta S/o Nand Lal Gupta Patta (69)
6 Sharda Nagar W/o Late Sanju Nagar Patta (New Document)
7 Salita Solanki W/o Late Vinod Patta (New Document)
Solanki
8 Krishna Bai W/o Late Shantilal Patta (77)
Solanki
9 Kamal Singh Mandloi S/o Hari Patta (New Document)
Singh Mandloi
9. W.P No.8986/2023. The present petition is filed on behalf of 22 petitioners.
According to the petitionerss,, the petition survives only in respect of 11 petitioners
and the case of other remaining 11, the petition stands withdrawn. The details of 11
contesting petitioners is mentioned as under:
under:-
S.No. Name of Petitioner Patta
1 Kishor Nagar S/o Babulal Nagar Patta (31)
2 Rajaram Kethvas S/o Moolchand Patta (33)
Kethvas
3 Radheshyam Yadav S/o Govind Patta (58)
Yadav
4 Mayaram S/o Siyana Patta (77)
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
5 Manju Sen S/o Kailash Sen Patta (86)
6 Jitendra Bhatte S/o Ramaprasad Patta (New Document)
Bhatee
7 Babulal Solanki S/o Bhavriya Patta (94)
Solanki
8 Mastabai Singh W/o Amar Singh Patta (121)
9 Akash Makwana S/o Kalabai Patta (151)
Makwana
10 Jhabli Bai W/o Sakharam Kikriya Patta (168)
11 Savitri Bai Mandloi W/o Sher Singh Patta (174)
Mandloi
10. For the sake of convenience, the facts are noted from WP No.6673/2022
Mamta Bai & Ors.. The facts succinctly are that the petitioners are granted pattas
under The Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoom
Bhoomihin
ihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti
Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred as the
"Adhiniyam, 1984")) by the State government considering them to be landless
persons. In pursuant to the said lease, they have taken over the possession. It is
argued that the petitioners were granted lease in the year 2013 for period of 30 years
and the said period is still continuing and the same has not been cancelled. The
respondents under Indore Master Plan of 2021 started developing RE-2
RE road having
its router from Bhuri Tekri to Nemawar to RTO. Initially the said road was under
the Indore Development Authority (IDA). However, on the letter of Municipal
Corporation, Indore, the road was sanctioned for construction to the Municipal
Corporation and the Corporation was asked to charge betterment tax from the
petitioners for the construction of RE
RE-2 road.
11. Counsel for petitioners vigorously argued that the lease was granted to the
petitioners after the Indore Master Plan being well aware that the road
r proposed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
under the Master Plan was not to be constructed from the land allotted to the
petitioners, however, in order to exte
extend
nd benefit to some land owners with mala-fide
mala
intention, the alignment of the road was changed and the road has been proposed
on a different route from the Indore Master Plan and, therefore, the petitioners have
prayed for a direction not to change the alignment of RE
RE-2
2 Road. Counsel for
petitioners referred the court orders dated 9.11.2022 and 14.12.2022 where the
counsel for the Corporation stated that the Corporation is ready to draw a fresh line
on both side of the proposed RE
RE-2
2 road before starting the construction work. It
was also submitted that the competent authority for implementation of Master Plan
is Joint director of the Town and Country Planning, therefore, he may also be
directed to remain present himself or depute any senior officer at the time of
drawing line in conformity with the master plan and the other local residents were
also allowed to remain present at the time of making of the line.
12. Considering the aforesaid submissions, a direction was issued to draw fresh
lines before construction of RE
RE-2
2 road. He argued that no fresh lines have been
drawn. From the order sheets
sheets, it is clear that the Court without
hout insisting the
respondents to draw fresh lines on 12.12.2024, directed the High Power Committee
to examine individuall cases and validity of pattas and possession of the land granted
to the petitioners after examining the documents. In compliance to the
th said order, a
report of High Power Committee has been submitted on 29.3.2025 along with IA
No.2839/2025.
13. Counsel for petitioners argued that the said report is based on a report of Sub
Committee and thus the High Power Committee has not submitted report
rep as per the
directions of the Court. He further urged that the petitioners were not served due
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
notice and they have not been given opportunity to raise objections. It is argued that
the respondents have offered alternative site on deposit of Rupees Two lakhs and
instalments and Rs.20,000/-- as an advance amount. The said condition of deposit
for allotment of alternative land/dwe
land/dwelling
lling house is contrary to Sec.3(A)
Sec. of
Adhiniyam and Rule 9(3)) of The Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin
Vyakti (Pattadhriti
adhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Rules, 2008 as he urged that as
per Rule 9(3)(i), if a lessee has to be shifted in public interest, then he will be re-
settled elsewhere
lsewhere by granting him lease
lease-hold rights
hts on the alternative location,
therefore, the respondents cannot charge any deposit from the petitioners for
providing alternative site under the said Rules. The said act of the respondents is
illegal and arbitrary. Another point has been argued that the petitioner is a lessee
and shall be governed byy the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred as Act of 2013 because the petitioners being lease holder
would come within the defin
definition of landless and will be entitled for compensation
as per the Act of 2013.
14. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.3 Corporation denied the allegations of
change of alignment on extraneous consideration. It is submitted that the alignment
of the road is as per the road sanctioned by the department of Town and Country
Planning who has not been arrayed as a party. The construction of the road is in
accordance with the sanctioned master plan. The allegations of mala-fide
mala have been
denied
15. As stated in the foregoing pa
paragraphs
ragraphs that after hearing the parties and taking
into consideration the provisions of the Act of 1984 and the Rules 2008, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
by order dated 12.12.2024 directed the High Power Committee to examine
individual cases, validity of pattas, possession ooff the land granted to the petitioners.
In compliance to the said order, a report was submitted and in the report a chart was
reproduced in respect of the petitioners and thereafter the petitioners have confined
their petitions only in respect of the remai
remaining
ning petitioners whose details have
already mentioned in preceding paragraphs.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised following points to challenge
the action of the respondents in construction of the Road RE
RE-2
2 and their shifting
from the present place:-
(A) The petitioners being lease holder under the Adhiniyam come within the
definition
tion of "land owner" under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, hence they cannot be
dispossessed
ssed without acquiring their land and paying appropriate compensation.
(B) The change of alignment of the road from the Indore Master Plan 2021 is
illegal, arbitrary and result of mala
mala-fide
fide action and conduct of the respondents.
(C) The action of the respondents shifting them from the present land/dwelling
house is contrary to the provisions of Section 33-A
A of the Adhiniyam and Rule
9(3)(ii) of the Rules, 2008.
(D) The imposition of condition of deposit of rupees two lakhs for providing
alternative dwelling
ling house under Rule 9(3)(ii) is arbitrary, unreasonable.
17. Admittedly, the petitioners for who
whomm the present petitions survive,
survive they are
patta holders under 'Adhiniyam 1984'. The said Act has been enacted to provide
for conferring the lease hold right
rightss to landless person in respect of sites for dwelling
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
houses in urban area. The "landless person" has been defined u/S.2(d) means that a
persons does not own either in his own name or in the name of any member of his
family any house or land in an urban area where he is actually residing. The
relevant portion of Section 2(d) of The Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetro Ke
Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984
regarding Landless Person reads as under:
under:-
2(d) ''Landless Person'' means a person who does not own
either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family any
house or land in an urban area where he is actually residing.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause 'family' includes
husband, wife, minor son, unmarried daughter or any relation by
blood wholly dependent on the landless person."
18. Sub section (3) of Sec.3 of Adhiniyam, 1984 engrafts that the lease hold
right accrued under sub-section
section (1) shall not be transferrable by sub lease, sale, gift,
gif
mortgage or any other manner whatsoever except by inheritance. Relevant portion
of Sec.3(3) of Adhiniyam, 1984 reads as under:
under:-
"3(3)
3(3) The lease hold rights accrued under sub
sub-section
section (1) shall
not be transferable by sub
sub-lease,
lease, sale, gift, mortgage or any
an other
manner whatsoever except by inheritance."
Provided that such lease hold rights may be mortgaged in
favour of a nationalized bank or a Co Co-operative
operative society or a
government undertaking, to securing loan for construction of a
expansion of a residentia
residential house."
19. Sub section (4) provides that if the landless person to whom the leasehold
rights have been accrued in respect of any land under this Act, transfers
transfer such land in
contravention of the provisions of sub section (3) or uses the said land for any
purpose other
er than residential purpose, the consequence will be that the lease shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
stand cancelled on the date of such transfer and such transfer shall be null
nu and void.
However, no leasehold
hold right shall accrue to the transferee in respect of such land.
l
Thus, the aforesaid provisions of Sec.3 makes it vivid that the lease granted under
the 'Adhiniyam 1984' only 'right to use' has been conferred and, therefore, the
petitioners being lease holder under Adhiniyam cannot be held to be "owner" of the
land. The provisions of Act of 2013 applies to the owner of the land and not to a
lease holder under the Adhiniyam, 1984. The road is being constructed by
Municipal Corporation under M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. In the case of
Ravindra Ramchandra Waghm
Waghmare
are Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation & Ors
(2017) 1 SCC 667, the Apex Court held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act are excluded under the Scheme of the Municipal Corporation Act and in a
construction of road under Master Plan, no separate pprocedure
rocedure has to be adopted.
The same is governed by provisions of Sec.291 of the Corporation Act. Paragraphs
25, 64 and 65 of the judgment may be referred. Thus, the first question is answered
that the petitioners cannot be held to be 'owner' of the property
perty and, therefore,
therefore they
are not entitled for compensation under the Act of 2013 is rejected.
20. Since it has been held that petitioners are not the owner and they are only
lease holder under 'Adhiniyam,
Adhiniyam, 1984
1984',, therefore, their other contentions
questioning
ng the rights of the Corporation or the authorities to construct the road
without acquisition of land and payment of compensation cannot be appreciated.
The Court has to see onlyy the right of the petitioners flowing from the 'Adhiniyam,
1984' and the 'Rules
Rules of 2008
2008' framed under the Adhiniyam.
21. Regarding the second issue
issue; the change of alignment contrary to the Indore
Master Plan, 2021, the counsel for the petitioners submits that the patta was granted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
to them in the year 2013 and at that time the Master Plan was already existing and
their land was not earmarked for the construction of the road, otherwise, the same
would not have been granted. The counsel for the Corporation denied the same.
Since we have already held that the petitioners are nnot
ot the 'owner' of the land but a
lease holder under Adhiniyam, 1984 and their right flows from the said Adhiniyam
and they are only entitled to be offered alternative house as per Section 3-A(3)
and Rule 9(3)(ii) on their shifting from the present ho
house
use or land. They cannot
question the change of alignment, conduct etc. Even otherwise the change of
alignment or construction of the road contrary to the Master Plan has been denied
by the respondent Corporation. No material has been produced before us
u in this
regard, hence no mala-fide
fide can be inferred against the statutory body. The
allegation of malafide are general in nature without impleading any officer by
name. We have been informed by the respondents that the road in question is about
4.25 km in length out of which approximately road of 3 km has already been
constructed and about rupees 20 crore has already been spent. The remaining work
of the road is held up because of pendency of the present petition. Thus, a huge
public money has already been spent. Even otherwise no interference can be called
in such matters where the public interest is involved for a work like construction of
road by local body. Thus, the question 'B' is answered accordingly.
22. Now third questions (C) and (D) that tthe
he action of the respondent
Corporation shifting them from present land/dwelling house and imposition of
condition of deposit of rupees two lakhs for alternative site contrary to the
provisions of the 'Adhiniyam 1984' and Rules 2008 are being decided together
toge as
whether they are in the violation of Section 33-A and Rule 9(3)(ii).
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
23. It is apposite to consider the contention regarding the procedure adopted by
the respondents for shifting of the petitioners from the present site and providing
alternative site on the condition of deposit of amount. Considering the aforesaid
questions, it is apt to refer the provisions of Sec.3(A) of the Adhiniyam, which
provides for removal of dwelling houses. Sub
Sub-section
section (1) says that a Committee
constituted by the State government
overnment shall decide the removal of any slum dwellers
and its settlement in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The provisions of
Sec.3-A and Rule 9 of Rules 2008 are reproduced as under:-
3-A. Removal of dwelling houses
houses.- (1) the Committee
constituted by the State Government in this behalf shall decide the
removal of any slum dwelling and its settlement in accordance with
the procedure prescribed.
(2) Any landless person who is occupation of the land of a
public park in the side of a road or in between road and dwellings
may be removed from such place in public interest and may be given
lease hold rights elsewhere.
(3) Any site for dwelling house where the landless persons are
settled under sub-section
section (1) of Section 3 may be shifted elsewhere in
public interest and their lease hold rights may be cancelled and such
persons may be settled elsewhere.".
"Rule 9. Removal of dwelling house
house.-(1)
(1) There shall be a High
Power Committee to decide on the question of securing the vacation
va
of any existing occupied land in the public interest.
9(2) The High Power Committee shall consist of the following,
namely:
(b) For Divisional Headquarters:
Headquarters:-
(1) Divisional Commissioner Chairmanı
(2) Collector Member
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
(3) Superintendent of Police
Police- Member
(4) Sub-Divisional
Divisional Officer (Revenue) of the Area
Area- Member
(5) Commissioner. Municipal Corporation
Corporation- Member
(6) Local Officer of the Town and Country Planning
Planning- Member
(7) Project Officer, D
District
istrict Urban Development Agency-
Member
9(3)
(3) The High Power Committee constituted under sub--rule (1)
shall take the following action in the matter of securing the vacation
of house sites in the public interest, namely:
namely:-
(i) In the case of a landless person who occupies a house site in
some public park or in the si side
de of a road or in between road and
dwellings or on the land required for other public purposes, he shall
be shifted from such location and resettled elsewhere by granting him
leasehold right on the alternative location.
(ii) If it is considered necessary in the public interest to shift the
permanent lease holders and settle them elsewhere, the High Power
Committee shall give to such lease hold holderer an opportunity of being
heardd and shall decide on shifting the occupant elsewhere after
considering all the fact
facts placed before it."
24. Sub-section (2) provides that any landless person who is in occupation of the
land of a public park in the side of a road or in between road and dwellings may be
removed from such place in public interest and may be given lease hold
hol rights
elsewhere. The said sub section (2) would not apply in the present case.
case Sub
section (3) provides that any site for dwelling houses where the landless persons are
settled under sub section 1 of Section 3 may be shifted elsewhere in public interest
and, therefore,
fore, lease hold rights may be cancelled and such persons may be settled
elsewhere. The
he respondents have resorted to the aforesaid Sub
Sub-section
section (3) of Sec.3-
A in the present case. According to them, the petitioners who were settled under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
sub-section (1) of Section 3 by granting lease, are required to be shifted elsewhere
in public interest as the road has to be constructed as per the Master Plan and,
therefore, their lease hold rights have been directed to be cancelled and a decision
has been taken to settle them elsewhere. The flats under Prime Minister
Minist Yojna have
been offered and as stated
ed in the chart mentioned in the Committee report some of
the petitioners have taken the said flats and shifted. Thus, the right of a lease
holder under the 'Adhiniyam,
Adhiniyam, 1984
1984' is only that while shifting from the present site,
in public interest, he has to be settled elsewhere. The respondents have stated that
they are shifting the petitioners in a flat constructed under the Prime Minister Yojna
and some of the petitioners have opted and shifted to the said flats.
25. Counsel for petitioners vehemently argued
rgued that they have not been given due
notice and opportunity to raise objections. We are unable to accept the said
contention because upon perusal of the report of High Power Committee which is
constituted under the Rule 9, it is pellucid that notices w
were
ere given by affixing the
notice on the residence, the same was also published in local newspaper and
advertisement was also issued. 15 petiti
petitioners
oners or their representatives appeared for
hearing and theyy were provided opportunity of hearing. A video recording
reco was also
done of the hearing. Along with the report, the details of service of notice have also
been mentioned. We also do not find any illegality in the procedure adopted by the
High Power Committee by appointing a Sub Committee to scrutinize the bulk
b
revenue record of the number of petitioners and other dwellors. The report is
prepared by the Committee. They have taken only assistance of the Sub
Committee.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
26. Counsel for petitioners further argued that the alternative site on
which the dwellingg houses are offered do not have facilities of school and other
amenities and it is far from the town and the same is not safe as some criminal
incidence have also taken place in the aforesaid locality. Counsel for respondent
Corporation apprised this C
Court
ourt that the buses including school buses have been
provided for transportation and one police station has also been opened in the said
area. Even otherwise under Rule 9 settlement of the lease holder does not mean
that the luxury has to be provided or tto provide a source of income or investment
for the settlers. The similar view has been taken by a co
co-ordinate
ordinate bench in the case
of Kashiram(deceased) through L.Rs Durgashankar & another Vs. State of
MP & Ors. WA No.133/2017 decided on 28.4.2017
28.4.2017.
27. So far demanding of amount of Rupees Two lakhs for the alternative site in
instalments and deposit of Rs.20,000/
Rs.20,000/- pre-deposit,
deposit, we are of the considered view
that the same is arbitrary and contrary to the object of the Adhiniyam, 1984 and the
Rules framed therein.
erein. The lease is granted under Adhiniyam to a landless person
as defined u/S.2(d) and Rule 3 provides for settlement of suc
suchh persons. As per Rule
9(3)(ii),
), if the lease holders (landless persons) are required to be shifted in the
public interest, the respondents are under obligation to settle them elsewhere and,
therefore, on shifting of a lease holder to another alternative places in the public
interest is to be without any cost of a lease holder who is a landless person.
Condition of deposit of Rupees
upees two lakhs is an arbitrary condition which would
certainly defeat the object of Adhiniyam of allotment of lease to a landless person
and their shifting on a need of the respondents in public interest. Thus, the
condition of the respondents of deposi
depositt of Rupees two lakhs for alternative
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC
site/dwelling house is quashed. The respondents are directed to allot the said
alternative site to the lease holders without any deposit.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the petitions
petiti
except that the condition of deposit of rupees two lakhs from the petitioners for
alternative site on their shifting is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the petition is
dismissed except for one issue.
29. No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
vm
