Madhya Pradesh High Court
Late Shri Krishnakant Ji Bangad Smrati … vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 1 --
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 24591 of 2024
SH. MANOHAR AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 24668 of 2024
SMT. MAHIMA TODI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WRIT PETITION No. 24713 of 2024
SMT SHOBHA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 2 --
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WRIT PETITION No. 34440 of 2024
LATE SHRI KRISHNAKANT JI BANGAD SMRATI SHAH
MAHESHWARI MARWADI SAMAJ SEWA NYAY THROUGH TRUSTEE
ANAND
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
(Heard on 25/02/2025)
(Pronounced on 28/03/2025)
1. Since these petitions raise common questions of facts and law they have
been heard together and are being decided by a common order. Facts are being
taken from W.P.No.24591/2024.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
preferred by the petitioner for quashing the award dated 28/2/2024 passed by
respondent No.1, the Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Indore
compulsorily acquiring his land.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 3 —
3. As per the petitioner, he is the Bhumiswami of land bearing Survey
No.2602/3(s) area 0.209 hectare Kasba Ujjain. It is situated at a distance of
approximately 1 Km from Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir. He had purchased
the land vide registered sale deed dated 29/1/2011. The land use of the land is
public and semi public purpose. The petitioner had purchased the land for
commercial purpose. On 19/5/2022 a declaration under Section 11(1) of Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 2013’) was
published in daily news paper and in official gazette on 27/5/2022. By the
notification petitioner’s land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of
parking for Shree Makaleshwar Mandir. The same was on the basis of a letter
dated 20/4/2022 sent by the Administrator of Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir
Prabandhan Samiti to the Collector, Ujjain for acquisition of 2.111 hectare of
land for purpose of parking. Thereafter on 5/9/2022 declaration under Section
19 of the Act, 2013 was made. Notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 was
then issued on 28/4/2023 and petitioner and others filed their objections. The
said objections on 6/2/2024 were directed to be considered at the time of
passing of the award. Eventually the award has been passed on 28/2/2024 and
the objections of the petitioner have been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objection
preferred by the petitioner under Sections 11 and 21 of the Act, 2013 has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 4 —
illegally rejected. The same was not decided prior to passing of the award and
was decided in the award itself which is not permissible. Mandatory
compliance of Section 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013 has not been made. The
appropriate Government without approval of the Parliament imposed urgency
Clause under Section 50 of the Act, 2013. The land acquisition for purpose of
parking is not permissible because Ujjain is under planning area and there is a
town development plan. As per the master plan petitioner’s land is not
earmarked for purpose of parking hence could not have been acquired for
parking. Parking is not covered under the definition of public purpose under
Section 3(za) of the Act, 2013. Sub section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 2013
does not recognise parking as public purpose. The Mahakaleshwar Managing
Committee initiated the land acquisition proceedings without following the
statutory provisions of Madhya Pradesh Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir
Adhiniyam, 1992 as per which the Mandir Committee is required to acquire
land by mutual agreement only. The reference Court cannot go behind the
reference and cannot give declaration that notifications under the Act, 2013 are
null and void hence it cannot be contended that the petitioner has alternate
remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. The authority can only decide the
rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter V and VI. The legality
of the land acquisition proceedings cannot be decided by it and it cannot quash
the award. If it cannot do so then it cannot be said that the petitioner has any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 5 —
alternate remedy. It is hence submitted that the award deserves to be quashed.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Orissa State
Electricity Board and Anr. ETC. V/s. M/s. I.P.I. Steel Ltd. & Ors. 1995 (4)
SCC 241.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that as per Section
41(ha) and Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 all infrastructure and
development projects cannot be adversely affected by Court orders. The
Schedule to Specific Relief Act puts tourism development also in the category
of infrastructure. Mahakal Corridor / Mahakal Lok is an infrastructure project
of international standard and for tourism purpose. Bunch of petitions
challenging acquisition around Mahakaleshwar Mandir so far as infrastructure
project of widening of road have been dismissed by this Court so also has the
petition challenging acquisition for building a roap way and parking area. The
procedural aspects of acquisition have been raised for the first time in this
petition. The objection which was preferred by the petitioner during
acquisition proceedings was only in respect to compensation. The said
objection has already been decided. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of
reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 wherein procedural aspects of
acquisition and rights of rehabilitation of displaced persons can be taken care
of. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance
has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. N.G. Project Ltd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 6 —
V/s. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 (6) SCC 127, of the Delhi High Court in
Hari Ram Nagar & Ors V/s. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (2019)
SCC Online Delhi 9747 and various orders passed by this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record.
7. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that construction of Mahakal Lok and the area surrounding it is an
infrastructure project hence the same cannot be stalled in view of provisions of
Section 41(ha) and Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but it is
observed that in the Schedule to the said Act tourism infrastructure has been
defined only to be 3 star or higher category classified hotel located outside
cities with population of more than one million and rope ways and cable cars.
The construction of Mahakal Lok and the area surrounding the same thus
cannot be said to be tourism infrastructure as per the schedule to the Specific
Relief Act attracting Section 41(ha) or Section 20-A thereof. The contention of
the respondents in this regard hence cannot be accepted.
8. The petitioner in the petition has sought quashment only of the award
dated 28/2/2024 and the entire land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner did
not challenge the notification issued under Section 40 of the Act, 2013 by the
respondents invoking the urgency clause and exemption granted under Section
9 of the Act, 2013. He has straightaway challenged the final award passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 7 —
after the issuance of the notification from time to time under the Act, 2013.
9. The objection which had been preferred by the petitioner under Section
11 / 21 of the Act, 2013 has been duly considered by the respondents at the
time of passing of the award and the same has been rejected. It is observed that
in the said objection the only ground raised by the petitioner was as regards
the quantum of compensation to be awarded to him. He had stated that he
deserves to be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,500,000/- along with
the statutory benefits. Various sale instances were submitted by him. It was
further stated that the sale deeds executed in the Office of Sub Registrar also
ought to be taken into consideration. Thus, no objection was raised by the
petitioner as regards the land acquisition proceedings themselves. At no point
of time was any such objection taken by the petitioner which has been raised
by him for the very first time in this petition. The petitioner would hence be
deemed to have waived the objections as raised by him in this petition which
consequently do not deserve adjudication.
10. As regards the compliance of Section 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013, this Court
in Writ Appeal No.117/2025 (Sairabi & Others V/s. Urban Administration and
Development Department & Ors.) decided on 11/1/2024 has already
considered the said issue and has held that in given facts and circumstances
exemption from submission of social impact assessment can be given. It has
been held as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 8 —
“11. In the case of U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad V/s Chandra Shekhar
reported in 2024 INSC 210 the Apex Court has granted exemption
from submission of Social Impact Assessment in a given facts and
circumstances, relevant para is as follows:-
“20. We may hasten to add that the procedure prescribed
under Chapter II of the 2013 Act, mandates to carry out
the Social Impact Assessment Study in certain situations.
The adherence to such a cumbersome procedure in the
instant case will be an exercise in futility for two reasons.
Firstly, a major part of the acquired land has already
been utilized for the notified public purpose. Secondly, the
study referred to above, will delay the assessment and
payment of compensation to the true tenure
holders/owners of Khasra No.673. Consequently, we
direct the appropriate Government to dispense with the
procedure contemplated under Chapter II of the 2013
Act.”
11. As regards invocation of the urgency Clause under Section 40 of the
Act, 2013, this Court in Radheyshyam Singh & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. &
Ors., W.P. No.5575/2024 decided on 18/7/2024 has already held that any
action taken under Section 40 of the Act, 2013 can be challenged by resorting
to the remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to assail the order passed by
the Collector. It has been held as under :-
“27. The main thrust of the petitioners is that the action taken
by the respondents was under Section 40 of the Act of 2013,
which pertains to special powers in the cases of urgency to
acquire a land in certain cases and the said powers of the
appropriate government to acquire a land is restricted to the
purposes mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 40 and as
none of the provisions as contained in Sub-section (2) of
Section 40 are attracted for acquisition of the land, the entire
award stands vitiated.
28. For the aforesaid purpose, the counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance on the preliminary notification datedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 9 —
07.09.2023, wherein the said notification was issued under
Section 11 and 40 of the Act of 2013 read with Rule 5(1) of
the Rules of 2015. On the basis of the aforesaid, it has been
contended that the provisions of said Section 40 has been
invoked while acquiring the said land.
29. Even if the aforesaid arguments are considered, by no
stretch of imagination it could be said that the said award
passed therein would be out of the clutches of Section 64. For
reference the relevant extract of provisions of Section 64(1)
are reproduced herein below :-
“Section 64(1):- Any person interested who has not
accepted the award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector
for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be,
whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the
amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is
payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under
Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation
among the persons interested :-
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a
reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make
such reference within the period so specified, the
applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be,
requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference
to it within a period of thirty days.”
30. The aforesaid sections provides that if any person,
who had not accepted the award may write an application to
the Collector and request that the matter be referred by the
Collector for determination of the authority, as the case may
be, when he has objected to the rights of rehabilitation and
resettlement under chapter V and VI.
31. Now, in this context if provisions of Section 40 of sub-
section (4) are seen, therein it is provided that whenever in
the opinion of appropriate government the provision of sub-
section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) are
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 10 —
applicable, the appropriate government may direct that any
or all provisions of chapter II to chapter VI shall not apply
and if it does so, directly a declaration may be made under
Section 19 in respect to the land at any time after date of
publication of preliminary notification under sub-section (1)
of Section 11.
32. So far as the sub-section(4) of Section 40 is concerned,
from the aforesaid provisions, it could be inferred that only
the procedural aspects as provided under chapter II to VI
shall not be applicable, if any action is proposed to be taken
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 40, as if it shall
not apply, as Section 40 itself is a part of chapter V, thus, it is
not acceptable that the objections with regard to rights of
rehabilitation and resettlement as provided under chapters V
and VI could not be entertained in reference under Section
64 and in view of sub-section (4) of Section 40.
33. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioners very well has
remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 to assail the
order passed by the Collector and in wake of availability of
efficacious alternative remedy available to them the present
petition is not maintainable.
34. Since this Court has held that petition itself is not
maintainable and the petitioners is having alternative
efficacious remedy available to him under Section 64 of the
Act of 2013, this Court has not gone into the merits of the
matter.
35. It is thus, directed that in case petitioners file an
application under Section 64 to the concerned Collector then
the Collector shall consider the application and if it is not
otherwise bar, shall make a reference to the authority so
designated in this behalf for hearing and deciding the
application of the petitioners on its own merits.”
12. Though it is contended by the petitioner that in the master plan of Ujjain
the land in question is not earmarked for purpose of parking hence no land
acquisition proceedings can be initiated for developing a parking in a place
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 11 —
which is not earmarked for parking, but in this regard it is observed that
proceedings for land acquisition have been taken under the Act, 2013 which is
a Central Act and it is not necessary for the respondents to acquire the land
only for the purpose for which it is reserved in the master plan. No provision
has been pointed out to show that land cannot be acquired for any purpose
other than the purpose as stated in the master plan. In any case as per the
petitioner himself the land is earmarked for public and semi public use. A
parking place would certainly fall within the domain of public and semi public
use since it would be the general public itself who would be parking the
vehicles in the parking lot. Thus the contention that by acquisition for parking
the land user would be changed and the same would be contrary to the master
plan cannot be accepted.
13. Moreover, under the definition of public purpose as given in Section
2(1) of the Act, 2013 tourism and project for planned development or the
improvement of village site or any site in the urban area is included. The
acquisition in the present case is being made for parking for the
Mahakaleshwar Mandir and Mahakal Corridor / Lok. The same has trappings
of a tourism activity. It is also being taken for planned development of area
situated within Ujjain which is an urban area. Thus, the contention that the
acquisition for parking cannot be said to be a public purpose is not liable to be
accepted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 — 12 —
14. The Act, 2013 being a central enactment would have the overriding
effect upon the Madhya Pradesh Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir Adhiniyam,
1982 in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. Thus, the respondents were
not required to acquire the land by mutual agreement as per sub-section (1) of
Section 33 of the Act, 1982. The proceedings taken by them in the present
matter hence cannot be faulted on that ground.
15. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion all the grounds as have been
raised by the petitioners in the petitions are found to be without any substance.
The petitions are hence devoid of any merits are are hereby dismissed. Let a
signed copy of the order be kept in the record of all the petitions and the
original be kept in the record of W.P.No.24591/2024.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
[ad_1]
Source link