Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R.S. Jha and S.K. Palo, JJ.
Joura Begam and another v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Appeal No.42 of 2015 (Gwalior) : against the order dated 9.1.2015, passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2746 of 2014 and order dated 9.2.2015, passed in Review Petition No.50/2015;
Decided on 16.9.2015.
Held : We are of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed and the said reason is that the original owners from whom the land had been acquired have neither challenged the acquisition proceedings nor raised any issue under the provisions of the Act of 2013 nor have they ever raised any dispute in respect of possession or disbursement of compensation. The appellants who have come into picture subsequently by getting the sale-deeds executed in their favour after passing of the award cannot be permitted to assail the acquisition proceedings as they have no right or locus standi to do so. (2013)3 SCC 571 followed. (2014)3 SCC 183, (2014)6 SCC 564, (2014)6 SCC 589, 2014(4) MPLJ 507, 2014(4) MPLJ 542, (2014)11 SCC 376, AIR 2012 SC 468, (2015)3 SCC 327 and (2005)1 SCC 558 distinguished.
(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- S.24(2) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.11 -- applicability of -- award passed on 30.3.2009 -- within five years of date of coming into commencement of Act of 2013 -- provisions of this Act of 2013 not applicable -- original owner neither challenged -- acquisition proceedings no9r raised any issue under provisions of Act 2013 -- appellants cannot be permitted to assail acquisition proceedings -- they have no right to do so -- appeal dismissed.
Held : The aforesaid provisions expressly provides that section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would come into operation only in cases where the award under section 11 of 1894 of the Act has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act. Admittedly, in the instant case the award was passed by the authority on 30.3.2009 and was therfore within five years of the date of coming into the commencement of the Act of 2013 on 1.1.2014 and in such circumstances the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act of 2013 has no applicability to the presence case.
¼1½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ && 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr && Hkwfe vtZu dk;Zokfg;ksa ds fo#) ;kfpdk && [kkfjt && fjV U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds fo#) fjV vihy && Hkwfe vtZu ds i'pkr~ && ewyLokeh ls vihykFkhZx.k }kjk Hkwfe Ø; dh xbZ && O;fDr ftUgksaus foØ;&foys[k fu"ikfnr fd;k && fu"iknu fnukad dks gd ;k vf/kdkj ugha j[krs Fks && D;ksafd Hkwfe igys&gh vftZr dh tk pqdh rFkk ik¡p o"kZ ds Hkhrj vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k && vihykFkhZx.k dks vtZu dk;Zokfg;ksa dks vk{ksfir djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha && Hkwfe dh fueqZfDr 'kklu }kjk ;k l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk ugha dh xbZ && vihy [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS rFkkdfFkr dkj.k gS fd ewyLokeh ftlls Hkwfe vftZr dh xbZ mlds }kjk u rks vtZu dk;Zokfg;ksa dks vk{ksfir fd;k x;k vkSj u gh vfèkfu;e] 2013 ds mica/kksa ds v/khu dksbZ fook|d mBk;k x;k uk gh mUgksaus dHkh dCtk ;k {kfriwfrZ ds laforj.k ds laca/k esa dksbZ fookn fd;kA vihykFkhZx.k tks fd vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr gksus ds i'pkr~ foØ;&foys[k vius fgr esa fu"ikfnr djkus ds i'pkr~ lkeus vk, mUgsa vtZu dk;Zokfg;ksa dks vH;kØe.k djus dh vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrh] D;ksafd os ,slk djus ds fy, dksbZ vf/kdkj ;k lqus tkus dk vf/kdkj ugha j[krs gSaA ¼2013½3 ,l lh lh 571 vuqlfjrA ¼2014½3 ,l lh lh 183] ¼2014½6 ,l lh lh 564] ¼2014½6 ,l lh lh 589] 2014¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 507] 2014¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 542] ¼2014½11 ,l lh lh 376] , vkb vkj 2012 ,l lh 468] ¼2015½3 ,l lh lh 327 rFkk ¼2005½1 ,l lh lh 558 izHksfnrA
¼2½ Hkwfe vtZu iquokZlu vkSj iquO;oZLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj vkSj ikjnf'kZrk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2013 && /kkjk 24¼2½ && Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 11 && mica/k dk ykxw gksuk && vf/kfu.kZ; 30-3-2009 dks ikfjr && vf/kfu;e 2013 ds izkjaHk gksus ds fnukad ls ik¡p o"kZ ds Hkhrj && vf/kfu;e 2013 ds mica/k ykxw ugha && ewyLokeh }kjk u gh vtZu dk;Zokfg;k¡ vk{ksfir dh vkSj u vf/kfu;e 2013 ds mica/kksa ds v/khu dksbZ fook|d mBk;k && vihykFkhZx.k dks vtZu dk;Zokfg;k¡ tks fd vH;kØe.k djus dh vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrh && os ,slk djus ds fy, vf/kdkj ugha j[krs && vihy [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr mica/k vfHkO;Dr :i ls mica/k djrs gSa fd vfèkfu;e 2013 dh /kkjk 24¼2½ dsoy ,sls ekeyksa esa izorZu esa vk,xh tgk¡ vfèkfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk 11 ds v/khu bl vf/kfu;e ds izkjaHk gksus ds ik¡p ;k mlls vf/kd o"kZ iwoZ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gksA Lohd`r :i ls bl ekeys esa izkf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kfu.kZ; 30-3-2009 dks ikfjr fd;k x;k rFkk blfy, vf/kfu;e 2013 ds izkjaHk gksus ds fnukad ls 1-1-2014 dks ik¡p o"kZ ds Hkhrj Fkk rFkk ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vf/kfu;e 2013 dh /kkjk 24 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds mica/k izLrqr ekeys esa ykxw ugha gSaA
Jha, J. -- 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2746/2014 as well as the order dated 9.2.2015, passed in Review Petition No.50/2015.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellants have purchased the lands bearing survey No.422, area 0.056 hectares and survey No.423/3, area 0.500 hectares, situated in village Sewda, Tahsil and District Datia, by sale-deeds dated 21.12.2009 and 14.12.2011 from Neeraj Kumar and Kalka Prasad Dubey, resopectively. Admittedly, the land in question was the subject-matter of land acquisition proceedings and was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. It is also undisputed that an award in respect of the lands in question was passed on 30.3.2009 against the original land owner.
3. As the land had been acquired for the purposes of construction of Datia-Sewda bye-pass road, therefore, when the authorities started taking action for constructions of the road, the appellants who are persons that have subsequently purchased the lands from the original owners, filed Writ Petition No.2746/2014 on the ground that the property in question that had been purchased by them after it had been released from acquisition by the authorities concerned by Annexure P-9, dated 24.3.2009 and, therefore, as the property was no longer subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings and as the appellants had purchased it therefore the respondent/authorities could not claim that the property had been acquired and in case they wanted to undertake construction of the road on the aforesaid property, they were required to take recourse to the proceedings for acquisition of land before taking any steps in that regard.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has clarified that the document dated 24.3.2009 is the document by which the land had been released and averment in this regard was made by the appellants in Writ Petition No.2746/2014 after the issue was taken up by the appellants in the review proceedings initiated by them after withdrawing Writ Appeal No.21/2015 filed by them. It is stated that as the appellants had purchased the land in question after the same was released on 24.3.2009, therefore, the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in appreciating the facts while dismissing the petition as well as the review petition filed by the appellants.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying on the provisions of section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2013"), submits that the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the authorities under the old Act had lapsed as compensation has not been paid and as possession is with the appellants and, therefore, no steps towards construction of the road can be taken by the authorities. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others [(2014)3 SCC 183, Union of India and others v. Shiv Raj and others [(2014)6 SCC 564], Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others [((2014)6 SCC 589], Bimla Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others [2014(4) MPLJ 507], Union of India v. Shiv Raj and others [2014(4) MPLJ 542], Sheela Jawarlal Nagori and another v. Kantilal Nathmal Baldota and others [(2014)11 SCC 376], Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others [AIR 2012 SC 468], Magnum Promoters Private Ltd. v. Union of India and others [(2015)3 SCC 327], and Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Syed Akbar [(2005)1 SCC 558], in support of his submissions.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submits that the land acquisi
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
