Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Vaishya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 72 of 2025
DINESH KUMAR VIASHYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADJHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ravindra Chaturvedi and Shri
Aditya Jaiswal- Advocates appeared for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Ashish Prasad and Shri Sharad
Chandra Khare- Advocates appeared for the respondent No.4.
Dr. S. S. Chouhan - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
..........................................................................................................
JUDGMENT
(Reserved on : 20 / 03 / 2025)
(Pronounced on : 01 / 04 / 2025)
Per: Hon’ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain.
The present intra Court appeal has been filed arising out of order
dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.35770/2024
whereby the learned Single Judge directed removal of representative of
respondent No.4 company from the enquiry team constituted for assessing
the compensation amount but allowed the representative of respondent
No.4-company to remain present on spot and further permitted the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
2
respondent No.4 company to raise objections to any false and fictitious
claims, if any made by the claimants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the aforesaid
order passed by the learned Single Judge has contended that a coal block has
been allotted to respondent No.4 at District Singrauli and proceedings for
acquisition of land are going on, during course of which proceeding for
assessment of compensation are going on. It is vehemently argued by
learned senior counsel for the appellant that as per Section 95(2) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement act, 2013 (For short referred to as ‘LARR Act-2013′) only
Requiring Body or a local authority is given right to appear and adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
3. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the present
respondent No.4 is not the Requiring Body in terms of provisions of LARR
Act-2013. By taking this Court through the various provisions of LARR
Act-2013, it is argued by learned senior counsel for the appellant that person
interested is defined in Section 3(x) of the said Act while Requiring Body is
defined under Section 3(zb) of the said Act. It is vehemently argued that the
respondent No.4 does not fall within the definition of Requiring Body
because the land is being acquired for the use of Central Government and
acquisition proceedings will confer right on the land upon the Central
Government and further that allocation of coal mine would amount transfer
of limited right of extraction of coal from the said mines whereas primary
and legal owner of the land would be the Central Government.
4. By taking this Court through various provisions of The Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short referred to as
‘Act of 1957’) so also Coal Blocks Allocation Rules, 2017, it is argued that
the respondent No.4 is given a limited right of extraction of coal from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
3
lands and real title in the land under the acquisition will not vest in
respondent No.4 and therefore, the respondent No.4 cannot be said to be
Requiring Body for the purpose of LARR Act-2013. It is further argued that
the learned Single Bench while granting liberty to the respondent No.4 to
raise objection to any alleged false claim by the land user has not given any
reasons for the same and therefore, giving away of blanket right of
participation without any analysis of legal provisions and providing reasons
for the same, makes the order of the learned Single Judge vulnerable.
5. By relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana reported in 2017(4) SCC 760 it
is vehemently argued that post-acquisition allottee has no locus to be heard
in the matter of determination of compensation under the scheme of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short referred to as ‘Act of 1894’) which is
analogous to the scheme of LARR Act-2013 and therefore, right of
participation could not have been given to the respondent No.4 as it is
contrary to the scheme of LARR Act-2013.
6. Another argument was raised that even if the respondent No.4 is held
to be a Requiring Body in terms of Section 3(zb) then it has only limited
right of participation under Section 23 read with Section 95 of LARR Act-
2013 and there is no provision in the said Act for making objection at the
time of inspection of land or assets. Thus, on this ground also, the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge is criticized.
7. Per Contra, the counsel for the respondent No.4 by relying on the
various provisions of LARR Act-2013 as well as the Act of 1894, has
vehemently argued that impugned order giving right to the respondent No.4
to raise objection to any false or fictitious claims is in accordance with the
legislative scheme contained in the LARR Act-2013 and Act of 1894 and
further that similar type of rights were also there in Section 50 (2) of Act of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
4
1894. Therefore, it is not something new right which is given under the
LARR Act-2013 nor the order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts
to granting any right which is not recognized under the law. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, is stated to be absolutely in
accordance with the legislative scheme of the enactment concerned.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also argued that once
a company is funding the process of acquisition and the cost of acquisition is
to be recovered from the said company, it would be a Requiring Body as
defined in Section 3(zb) of LARR Act-2013and further that the somewhat
analogous provisions of Section 50(2) of the Act of 2013 were interpreted by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
v. Gyan Devi reported in 1995(2) SCC 326 and Supreme Court has
recognized such right of the company for whom the acquisition is taking
place.
9. It is further contended that lot of fictitious claims are being made by
the land losers by raising temporary structures on agricultural or other
vacant lands and claiming compensation by making out a case of loss of
dwelling house. Therefore, participation of the respondent No.4 to the
limited extent of raising objections at the time of determination of
compensation cannot be held to be unjustified.
10. Heard.
11. In the present case, the respondent No.4 has admittedly been awarded
a coal block (“Bandha” Coal Block) at District Singrauli and the initial
notification under the LARR Act, 2013 was issued on 14.06.2021 by the
Collector, District Singrauli and placed on record as (Annexure P-1). From a
bare perusal of the said notification, it is evident that Bandha coal block has
been allotted to respondent No.4 at Tehsil Sarai, Distt. Singrauli and lands in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
5
certain villages in the said Tehsil are required to be acquired for the said
purpose. The relevant portion of the said notification dated 14.06.2021 is as
under:-
कायालय कले टर जला िसंगरौली एवं पदे न अपर सिचव म0 0 शासन राज व वभाग
मांक/387/भू-अजन/आर/21 िसंगरौली दनांक 14/06/2021
अिधसूचना
रा य सरकार, मेसस ई. एम.आई.एल. माइ स ए ड िमिनरल रसोसस
िलिमटे ड बंधा कोल लॉक के िलए जला िसंगरौली तहसील सरई अंतगत ाम
ते दहु ा, पडरवाह, दे वर , बंधा एवं पचौर क भूिमय क अजन करना चाहती है और
लोक योजन के िलए सामा जक समाघात िनधारण अ ययन करना चाहती है ।
अ ययन का काय भूिम अजन, पुनवासन और पुन यव थापन म उिचत ितकर
और पारदिशता का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2013 ( मांक 30 सन ् 2013) क धारा 4
के ावधान के अनुसार कया जाएगा।
(1) प रयोजना वकासक का नाम:- मेसस ई.एम.आई.एल. माइ स ए ड िमिनरल
रसोसस िलिमटे ड बंधा कोल लॉक प रयोजना, पहचान नं0
U14290WB2020PLC2367171T पता:- Industry House. 18 Floor, 10 Camac
Street, Kolkata 700017, India(2) भूिम के ता वत अजन का योजनः- कोयला खदान से िनकलने वाले
कोयले क आपूित विभ न औ ोिगक के क जायेगी जसम ताप व ुत
उ पादन के भी शािमल है । औ ोिगक के एवं ताप व ुत के को कोयले
क सतत आपूित होने से दे श के औ ोिगक उ पादन म वृ होगी व उसका लाभ
जन सामा य को होगा। इससे अित र यह प रयोजना बृहद तर क होने के
कारण थानीय लोग को य व अ य लाभ होगा। जसम य व
अ य रोजगार स मिलत है । पूज
ं ी का वाह िसंगरौली े म होने के कारण
आस-पास के े का सवागीण वकास होगा। कंपनी ारा अपने लाभांश का अंश
सामा जक उ रदािय य काय म म कोर व बफर जोन के वकास हे तु कया
जायेगा, जसके फल व प इस े का स पूण के या वयन का वकास होगा।
म0 0 शासन व के शासन को राज व टै स क ाि होगी, जसका उपयोग
वकास योजनाओं के या वयन हे तु कया जायेगा ।
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
6
12. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid notification, it is evident that it is
not a case of respondent No.4 being a post-acquisition allottee but
respondent No.4 is an entity who has been granted coal block and right of
extraction of coal from the said coal block and as a consequence of grating
of right of extraction of coal in this coal block, the acquisition proceedings
have been put to motion.
13. So far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant on
the case of Satish Kumar Gupta (supra) is concerned, the said case was
one where the State of Haryana had acquired a land for development of
industrial township by an instrumentality of the said State i.e. Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation and after development of township, the
land was allotted to a third party (Maruti Suzuki India Limited) and the said
third party was allotted land with clear understanding that challenges to the
determination of compensation by the land outstees are pending and if the
compensation is enhanced in future then the allottees in the township shall
be liable to pay additional price of the land allotted in the industrial
township. It was a case where at the time of acquisition, the allottee who
wanted to raise objection to the quantum of compensation, was not in
picture at the stage of acquisition or reference Court. He was not in the
picture at the time of initial determination of compensation and when the
township was established and developed, he was allotted land in the
township and then realized that the land losers have initiated appellate
proceedings in the matter of determination of compensation and then sought
for a right to be heard in the matter of determination of compensation at that
stage when appeals had been filed before the High Court against award of
the reference Court. In those facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that party to be a post-acquisition allottee and held that the post-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
7
acquisition allottee has no right or locus to be heard in proceedings
regarding compensation and he was held to be neither a necessary nor a
proper party. Most importantly, in para-15 of the same judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court brought out clear distinction between a post-
acquisition allottee, and a entity for whom, the land is being acquired, in the
following manner :-
“15. In Himalayan Tiles [Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P)
Ltd. v. Francis Victor Coutinho, (1980) 3 SCC 223] the acquisition
was under Part VII of the Act. In Santosh Kumar [Santosh
Kumar v. Central Warehousing Corpn., (1986) 2 SCC 343] the
question was whether award of the Collector could be challenged, to
which this Court answered in the negative except on the ground of
fraud, corruption or collusion. In Neyvely Lignite [Neyvely Lignite
Corpn. Ltd. v. Tahsildar (LA), (1995) 1 SCC 221] again the
acquisition was under Part VII of the Act and in that context this
Court held that the expression “person interested” could include a
company or local authority for whose benefit the land was acquired.
The post-acquisition allottee cannot by any stretch of imagination be
treated on a par with beneficiary for whom the land was acquired.
In U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad [U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326] , the matter dealt with
was in the context of statutory authority for whom the land was
acquired. DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma [DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma,
(2011) 2 SCC 54 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 344] was a case in the context
of beneficiary for whom the land was acquired.”
14. In the present case, coal block has been allotted to the respondent
No.4 prior in time to initiation of the acquisition process and respondent
No.4 is funding the acquisition process which is going on at the cost of
respondent No.4. The respondent No.4, therefore, cannot be said to be a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
8
post-acquisition allottee as was in the case of Satish Kumar Gupta
(supra).
15. So far as the issue regarding coverage of respondent No. 4 in the
definition of Requiring Body under Section 3(zb) of the Act of LARR Act-
2013 so also in terms of Section 50(2) of Act of 1894 and whether the
respondent No. 4 falls under the definition of person interested under
Section 3(x) of the LARR Act-2013 is concerned, the respondent No. 4
would obviously not fall in the definition of “person interested” as per
Section 3(x) of LARR Act-2013 because the said definition relates to the
person who is interested in receiving the compensation and making the
claim of compensation. Section 3(x) is as under:-
3(x)”person interested” means-
(i)all persons claiming an interest in compensation to
be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act;
(ii)the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers, who have lost any forest rights recognised under the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007);.
(iii)a person interested in an easement affecting the
land;
(iv)persons having tenancy rights under the relevant
State laws including share-croppers by whatever name they
may be called; and
(v)any person whose primary source of livelihood is
likely to be adversely affected;
16. So far as the coverage of respondent No. 4 in the definition of
Requiring Body which is claimed by the respondent No. 4 in the present
case is concerned, Section 3(zb) of LARR Act-2013 is as under:-
“3(zb)”Requiring Body” means a company, a body
corporate, an institution, or any other organisation or person
for whom land is to be acquired by the appropriate
Government, and includes the appropriate Government, if theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
9acquisition of land is for such Government either for its own
use or for subsequent transfer of such land is for public
purpose to a company, body corporate, an institution, or any
other organisation, as the case may be, under lease, licence or
through any other mode of transfer of land;
17. The said definition in earlier part relates to a company, body corporate
etc. for whom land is to be acquired by the appropriate Government and the
second part of the definition is inclusive definition declaring the appropriate
government also included in the definition of Requiring Body if the
acquisition of land is for own use of government or for subsequent transfer
of such land is for public purpose to a company, body corporate, etc.
18. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid definition, it is clear that first part
of the definition relates to a company, body corporate etc. for whom the land
is to be acquired and if the land is being acquired by government for
subsequent transfer of land for public purpose to a company, body corporate,
etc. then even the appropriate government would be included in the
definition of Requiring Body. The said definition was sought to be read
down by the appellant that only the appropriate government would be the
Requiring Body. We are afraid that the interpretation suggested by the
learned senior counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for the simple
reason that the land is being acquired for the respondent No. 4 and at the
cost of the respondent No. 4. The definition as contained in Section 3(zb)
does not talk of transfer of title but talks of acquisition for a body corporate,
institution, company, etc. The respondent No. 4 has been allocated a coal
block prior to initiation of acquisition process and the initial notification
dated 14/06/2021 is very clear about the acquisition being initiated
consequence to allocation of coal block to the respondent No. 4. Therefore,
it is clear that the acquisition is going on for the respondent No. 4 and even
if it is held that it is being acquired by the appropriate Government for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
10
handing over to respondent No.4 as mining rights of Coal therein have been
given to it, then also the only result would be that the appropriate
government would also be included in the purview of Requiring Body but it
would not exclude the respondent No. 4 from the purview of Requiring
Body.
19. As per Section 95(2) of LARR Act-2013 a right has been given to the
Requiring Body to appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of
determination of amount of compensation. By that provision, the Requiring
Body has not been given the right to demand reference to the authority
concerned under Section 64 but given a right to appear before the Collector
at the time of initial determination of compensation and adduce evidence for
that purpose. Section 95 is as under:-
“95. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Requiring
Body.
(1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for
the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled
or managed by a local authority or of any Requiring Body, the
charges of land incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed
from or by such fund or Requiring Body.
(2) In any proceeding held before a Collector or
Authority concerned in such cases the local authority or
Requiring Body concerned may appear and adduce evidence
for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation:
Provided that no such local authority or Requiring
Body shall be entitled to demand a reference to the Authority
concerned under section 64.”
20. Section 95(1) further makes the position clear that when acquisition is
going on at the cost of any fund controlled and managed by a local authority
or of any Requiring Body the charges of land incidental to such acquisition
shall be borne by such requiring body and in such proceedings the Requiring
Body shall have the right as per Section 95(2) which is clear by perusal of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
11
the wording of Section 95(1) and 95(2). In the present case there is no
quarrel to the fact that the acquisition is being carried out at the cost of the
respondent No. 4.
21. Coming to the scheme of other provisions of LARR Act-2013, though
the Requiring Body has not been given a right to initiate a reference under
Section 64 of LARR Act-2013, but it has been given a right to challenge the
award passed in reference proceedings by filing appeal against such award
passed in reference proceedings under Section 69.
22. As per Section 45(1)(2)(i) the Rehabilitation & Resettlement
committee is also required to have a representation of Requiring Body. As
per Second proviso to Section 19 (1) the declaration of acquisition shall not
be made without the Requiring Body depositing the amount in full or part
towards the cost of acquisition of land as may be prescribed by the
appropriate Government.
23. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326 was considering the provision of Section
50 (2) of the Act of 1894. Section 50 of Act of 1894 was as under:-
“50. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or
Company.– (1) Where the provisions of this Act are put
in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of
any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of
any Company, the charges of and incidental to such
acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or
Company.
(2) In any proceeding held before a Collector or Court
in such cases the local authority or Company concerned
may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation:
Provided that no such local authority or Company
shall be entitled to demand a reference under Section 18.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
12
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad (supra) has held as under:-
23. Under Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act the company for
whom land is being acquired is also entitled to appear and
adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the
compensation. Since the company for whom land is acquired
stands on the same footing as a local authority whatever has
been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a
company. It is, however, made clear that matters which stand
finally concluded will not be reopened.
24. To sum up, our conclusions are:
1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority
for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the
acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the
reference court and adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.
2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate
notice by the Collector as well as the reference court before
whom acquisition proceedings are pending on the date on
which the matter of determination of compensation will be
taken up.
3. The proviso to Section 50(2) only precludes a local
authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the
local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of
the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the
reference court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A.
Act.
4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by Section
50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of
the acquisition proceedings, the local authority can invoke
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority
the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be
available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial
review is permissible under Article 226.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
13
6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings
before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a
party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the
determination of the amount of compensation by the
Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and
also adduce evidence in that regard.
7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation
by the reference court if the Government does not file an
appeal, the local authority can file an appeal against the
award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the court.
8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded
by the reference court, the local authority should be
impleaded as a party and is entitled to be served notice of the
said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court
as well as in this Court.
9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the
same right as a local authority under Section 50(2), whatever
has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to
a company too.
10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however,
not be reopened.
25. In LARR Act-2013, the right of the Requiring Body to demand a
reference in terms of section 64 has been curtailed as was the position earlier
also as per proviso to Section 50 of Act 1894. However, as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the analogous provisions which were
contained in Section 50(2) of Act of 1894, it has been held that the company
for whom the land was acquired stands on the same footing as a local
authority, the grant of limited opportunity to the respondent No. 4 to appear
and object to determination of compensation does not seems to be
unjustified.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant had also argued that right cannot be
given to the respondent No. 4 to appear at every stage of acquisition
proceedings but even if they are held to be Requiring Body, then also as per
Section 95 and other provisions of LARR Act-2013 they can only appear
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
14
and object and tender evidence at appropriate stage. There is no quarrel to
this proposition that the respondent No. 4 can appear and raise objection
only in the manner the same has been permitted as per Scheme of LARR
Act-2013. The respondent No. 4 has been held by us to be a Requiring Body
and the learned single Judge has only allowed the representative of the
respondent No. 4 to remain on spot at the time of inspection without being
part of the team which will conduct the enquiry. Further liberty has been
given to raise objection to any false and fictitious claim made by the
claimant. Obviously these objections are to be made before the concerned
authority which determines the compensation at the time of determination of
compensation and no right has been given to raise objection at the spot. By
granting liberty to the respondent No. 4 to remain present at the time of
inspection of spot, only an opportunity has been given to respondent No. 4
that may be utilized to visit the spot, take photographs/videos, draw maps,
watch the manner in which survey/inspection is being carried out, etc. which
will enable it to effectively object to the spot inspection report when it may
be produced before the authority concerned at the time of determination of
compensation. Therefore, the limited liberty that has been granted by the
learned Single Judge to the respondent No. 4 does not appear to be
something granted which is beyond the provisions of scheme of LARR Act–
2013.
27. Resultantly, finding no merits in the present appeal, the same stands
dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Nks/MISHRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 02-04-2025
2:31:00 PM
[ad_1]
Source link