Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
S.C. Sharma, J.
Shashikant Patel – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 1548, 1550, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1555, 2355, 2357, 2359, 2372, 2374, 2375, 2397, 2402, 2703, 2705, 2706 of 2016
Decided On : 10-11-2016
The Act of 2013 supersedes the State Government's Act for laying pipelines, and the affected parties are entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 2, Section 105, Schedule 4
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an agriculturist, filed a writ petition against the State of Madhya Pradesh for laying pipelines, cables, and ducts on his agricultural land without providing compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the State Government's action of laying underground pipeline cable duct over the petitioner's land entitles the petitioner to compensation under the Act of 2013, as the State Government's Act of 2012 does not find place under the Fourth Schedule.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for the acquisition of his land by the State Government for laying pipelines, cables, and ducts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that as the State Government is using the land, the Act of 2013 is applicable, and the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as per the statutory provision contained under the Act of 2013.
Final Decision: The present Writ Petitions stand allowed, and the State Government is directed to conclude the exercise of granting compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the court's order.
S.C. Sharma, J.
1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No. 1548/2016 are narrated hereunder.
2. The petitioner before this Court who is an agriculturist and owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 229/2/2/1 admeasuring 0.871 hectare situated at village Balwada, Tehsil Badwaha, District Khargone, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the Notification dated 21.1.2016 issued by the respondents under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipeline, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi ke Upyokta ke Adhikaron ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that by issuing the aforesaid Notification dated 21/1/2016 (Annexure P/1) the State of Madhya Pradesh is using the land belonging to the petitioner as the State Government is laying pipelines, cables, ducts which are necessary for a project i.e. Narmada Malwa Gambhir Link Pariyojna.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not paying compensation to the petitioner keeping in view the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that for all purposes he will not be able to use his land as there is a rider under the Act of 2012, he will not be able to construct over the land at any point of time. The petitioner's grievance is that if the land is being acquired, he is entitled for the compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
6. Mr. Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 2 of the Act and his contention is that in case the Government acquires the land for use, hold and control, compensation has to be given as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and he has argued that the Act of 2012 of the State of Madhya Pradesh is not included in 4th Schedule and, therefore, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is very much applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. He has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashment of Notification dated 21.1.2106.
7. This Court by an interim order dated 26.2.2015 has initially granted stay in favour of the petitioner, however, the interim order was modified on 15.3.2016 and the State Government was permitted to proceed ahead with the laying of pipeline, meaning thereby, the State Government has been permitted to use the land in question, however, the only question left is whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or not.
8. Mr. Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the respondent - State has vehemently argued before this Court that in the light of the reply filed by the State Government, the question of grant of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does not arise. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipeline, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi ke Upyokta ke Adhikaron ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012 read with the Rules framed thereunder known as Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipeline, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi ke Upyokta ke Adhikaron ka Arjan) Niyam, 2013 and his contention is that the compensation has to be paid as per the formula under R
