Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 545
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Rajaram and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.8176 of 2013 (Gwalior); Decided on 17.12.2014
Arvind Dudawat for petitioners;
Praveen Newaskar, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Headnote:(1) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- Ss.24(1)(a), 24(2), 114(1) and 114(2) -- Act of 1894 is repealed -- notification under section 4 is in accordance with law -- respondents admittedly not passed any award -- provisions relating to determination of compensation new Act will apply -- to this extent petitioners are entitled to succeed -- no fault found in earlier notifications.
Held : In view of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that section 4 notification is in accordance with law. The respondents have admittedly not passed any award. Thus, as per section 24(1)(a) of the new Act, the provisions relating to determination of compensation of new Act will apply. To this extent, petitioners are entitled to succeed. No fault could be found in the earlier notification dated 23.8.2013 and 13.12.2013. AIR 1992 SC 180, AIR 1960 SC 794 and (2011)5 SCC 553 referred to. (1992)2 SCC 168 distinguished.
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 -- S.6 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.4 -- notification under section 4 issued to acquire land -- Act of 1894 repealed -- pending proceedings of same Act are saved to extent of general application of section 6 -- cannot be held that petitioner were not aware of notification of section 4 -- no prejudice could be established by petitioners in this regard -- compensation for petitioners will be determined as per new Act.
Held : The pending proceedings of 1894 Act are saved and therefore, it cannot be held that on commencement of new act, section 4 notification is lapsed.
A bare reading of this provision will make it clear that when no award under section 11 of 1894 Act has been made, then all provisions of this Act (new Act) relating to determination of compensation would apply.
I am unable to hold that petitioners were not aware about the notification of section 4 published in the Gazette and in the local newspapers. No prejudice could be established by the petitioners in this regard. AIR 1959 SC 648 and AIR 1980 SC 77 discussed. AIR 1964 SC 1284, (1972)4 SCC 174, (2000)2 SCC 536, AIR 1955 SC 84, (1989)2 SCC 557 and (2000)3 SCC 548 referred to.
[Para 24
¼1½ Hkwfe vtZu] iquZoklu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj vkSj ikjnf’kZrk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2013 && /kkjk 24¼1½¼d½] 24¼2½] 114¼1½ rFkk 114¼2½ && 1894 dk vf/kfu;e fujflr && /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk fof/k ds vuqlkj gS && izR;FkhZx.k us fu’p; gh dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr ugha fd;k && izfrdj ds vo/kkj.k ds laca/k esa uohu vf/kfu;e ds mica/k ykxw gksaxs && ;kphx.k bl lhek rd lQy gksus ds gdnkj gS && iwoZrj vf/klwpukvksa es dksbZ =qfV ugha ikbZ xbZA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr fo’ys”k.k dks ns[krs gq, ;g Li”V gS fd vf/klwpuk /kkjk 4 fof/k ds vuqlkj gSA izR;FkhZx.k us fu’p; gh dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr ugha fd;kA bl izdkj] uohu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 24¼1½¼d½ ds vuqlkj] izfrdj ds vo/kkj.k ds laca/k esa uohu vf/kfu;e ds mica/k ykxwa gksaxsA ;kphx.k bl lhek rd lQy gksus ds gdnkj gSA iwoZrj vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-8-2013 rFkk 13-12-2013 es dksbZ =qfV ugh ikbZ xbZA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 180] , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 794 rFkk ¼2011½5 ,l lh lh 553 fufnZ”VA ¼1992½2 ,l lh lh 168 izHksfnrA
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-26 && lk/kkj.k [kaM+ vf/kfu;e] 1897 && /kkjk 6 && Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 4 && Hkwfe vtZu ds fy, /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk tkjh && 1894 dk vf/kfu;e fujflr && blh vf/kfu;e dh yafcr dk;Zokfg;k¡ /kkjk 6 dh lkekU; mi;qDrrk dh lhek rd lqjf{kr gS && vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;kphx.k dks /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk dk Kku ugha Fkk && bl lac/k esa ;kphx.k }kjk dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko LFkkfir ugha fd;k tk ldk && ;kphx.k ds fy, izfrdj dk vo/kkj.k uohu vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj gksxkA
vfHkfUk/kkZfjr % vf/kfu;e 1894 dh yafcr dk;Zokfg;k¡ lqjf{kr gS blfy, ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd uohu vf/kfu;e ds vkjaHk gksus ij /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk O;ixr gks xbZA
bl mica/k dks dsoy v/;;u ls ;g Li”V dj nsxk fd tc vf/kfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk 11 ds v/khu dksbZ vf/kfu.kZ; ugha fd;k x;k gS] rc bl vf/kfu;e¼uohu vf/kfu;e½ ds lHkh mica/k izfrdj ds vo/kkj.k ds laca/k es ykxw gksaxsA
eSa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa vleFkZ gw¡ fd ;kphx.k dks /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk ds jkti= rFkk LFkkuh; lekpkj&i=ksa esa izdkf’kr gksus dk Kku ugha FkkA ;kphx.k }kjk bl laca/k esa dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko LFkkfir ugha fd;k tk ldkA , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 648 rFkk , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 77 foosfprA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1284] ¼1972½4 ,l lh 174] ¼2000½2 ,l lh lh 536] , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 84] ¼1989½2 ,l lh lh 557 rFkk ¼2000½3 ,l lh lh 548 fufnZ”VA
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, villagers of Village Badora, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the notification dated 23.8.2013 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act). The petitioners have also prayed that the respondents be restrained from encroaching the land over which they intend to construct a water pond.
2. Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are owners of agricultural lands bearing Survey No.683, 696, 694 and 700 of Village Badora, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri. Their only source of livelihood is agriculture. It is contended that earlier for the benefit of resident of village Teela, a decision was taken to construct Teela tank on the land of said village which was duly identified. An order dated 17.1.2012 was passed for the purpose of construction of Teela tank. Thereafter, the State Government by order dated 12.3.2013 issued administrative sanction for disbursement of funds.
3. It is contended that because of pressure mounted by villagers of Gram Teela, the decision was changed and the impugned notification was issued in order to acquire the land in village Badora. He submits that the total agriculture land as per Government record in village Bodora is 243.90 hectares, out of which by impugned notification under section 4, the respondents intend to acquire a land to the tune of 194.300 hectares. It is submitted that the petitioners are rustic villagers and are residing in remote area. There is no circulation of daily news papers in the said area. They never came to know about any Gazette Notification published Section 4. However, by way of objection in ‘Jan Sunwai’ (Annexure P-4) dated 18.6.2013, they raised objection about proposed construction of tank at the land of their village. The petitioners actually came to know about such construction when the officers of the State Government equipped with JCB machine came to dig their valuable land. At this stage, on the basis of documents available with them, they filed this petition.
4. It is submitted that pursuant to interim order passed by this Court, the respondents could not proceed beyond the notice issued under section 9 of the Act. It is also canvassed that the Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha, Badora have also passed resolution against acquisition of the land in their village.
5. Shri Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the new Act, 2013) came into being w.e.f. 1.1.2014. After commencement of the new Act, the earlier notification issued under section 4 and Section 6 became a nullity. He relied on section 114 of the new Act to submit that the entire Act of 1894 is repealed. The saving clause is to the extent of general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. By taking this Court to section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it is contended that section 6 (a), (b), and (d) have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far clause (c) and (e) of section 6 are concerned, it is urged that a conjoint and microscopic reading of these clauses will make it clear that only such proceedings under 1894 Act can be treated as saved in which any right has already been acquired or accrued. The said clauses (c) and (e) are not applicable when mere proceedings were initiated in order to acquire the right but no right is actually accrued and acquired. Reliance is placed on AIR 1980 SC 72 (M.S.Shivananda v. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others), AIR 1989 SC 1614 (Bansidhar and others v. State of Rajasthan and others), AIR 1991 SC 2156 (Vinon Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others), and AIR 1993 SC 1188 (M/s. P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement). To elaborate, Shri Dudawat, lear
