The obligation to pay compensation for expropriated land is a necessary incident of the power of compulsory acquisition, and the court has the power to grant relief by directing the determination and payment of compensation.

Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 4.3.2006 Annexure P/14 and contains a prayer to declare the scheme as having been lapsed and abandoned in respect of Phase No.II. The petitioners prayed for a declaration that land of petitioners be treated as released from vesting. The challenge is also made to the resolution No.2 of Municipal Council dated 5.7.2006 Annexure P/20 and consequent advertisement of plots by Annexure P/21. A writ of mandamus is prayed for against Municipal Council, Itarsi for according permission to construct Jain Temple. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition for restraining the Municipal Council from taking over possession of petitioners' land and using the same for any other purpose whatsoever. Lastly, the challenge is made to the appellate order dated 25.11.2006 whereby the Statutory Appellate Committee has rejected the appeal of the petitioners.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioners were owners of certain land in Itarsi. The erstwhile Itarsi Town Improvement Trust (for short 'Trust") was constituted under the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (for short 'the Trust Act'). The Trust framed and got sanctioned a scheme called Surajganj Scheme No.1 from the State Government under Section 52(1) of the Trust Act for the purpose of establishment of residential colonies, shopping complex, health centres, cinema halls, stadium, parks and roads. The scheme contained two phases viz. Phase No.1 consisting of 35.56 acres and Phase No.II consisting of 55.03 acres. The work in respect of Phase No.I is complete. Work in respect of the Phase No.II is totally incomplete and petitioners' land is situated in the land earmarked for Phase No.II.

3. The Trust issued a notification under Section 71(1) of the Trust Act on 11.3.1983 for implementation of the scheme dated 19.10.1982 (Annexure R/1) and acquired 36.60 hectares of land. The notification includes 8 acres of land bearing Khasra No.18 which belongs to the petitioners. The petitioners stated that in addition, land ad measuring 3,56,000 sq. ft. is also included in the notification and this land belongs to petitioner No.1. After family partition, petitioners separately owned land out of Khasra No.18/3, 18/11 and 128/26.

4. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trust allegedly issued notice under Section 71(3) of the Trust Act to the petitioners for taking possession of their land. The said notices dated 13.4.1983 Annexure R-5/A & B were referred to in this regard. It is submitted that no compensation has been paid to the petitioners as mandated under Section 72 of the Trust Act. The petitioners submit that the notices/orders dated 13.4.1983 Annexure R-5-A & B were never served on the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that after almost two years of issuance of above notices (Annexure R-5-A & R-5-B), the Trust prepared a document showing that it has taken possession of land including petitioners' land on the next date upon completion of 30 days period as mentioned in the notices dated 13.4.1983. It is submitted that no notices under Section 71(4) were ever issued by the Trust and actual possession of land belonging to the petitioners were never taken over by the Trust. The petitioners continued to remain in possession and they are still in possession. Shri Agrawal argued that petitioners have neither given possession to the Trust on their own volition nor the possession was taken forcibly. It is admitted between the parties that earlier MP No.50/85 was filed before this court by the petitioners challenging the constitution of the Trust and seeking stay on dispossession pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. This Court on 9.1.1985 passed an interim order which remained in operation till dismissal of the petition on 10.3.1999. The petitioners referred the communication dated 5.9.1986 Annexure P/8 whereby the Trus