Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Phooleshwari Pandre and others v. M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd. Malaj Khand Copper Project
Miscellaneous Petitions No. 459 of 2022, 461 of 2022, 462 of 2022, 464 of 2022, 465 of 2022 and 467 of 2022 (Jabalpur); Decided on 4.5.2023
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165¼6½ & Òwfe vtZu vfèkfu;e] 1894 & èkkjk 4] 6] 10 rFkk 11 & Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 227 & foyac rFkk ykijokgh & çÒko & Òwfe vftZr & ÒwfeLokeh }kjk çfrdj rFkk dqVqac d¢ lnL;¨a dh u©dfj;ka Lohdkj dh xbZ & vtZu dk;Zokgh vk{ksfir ugha dh xà & 45 o"kZ i'pkr~ lafgrk dh èkkjk 165¼6½ d¢ vèkhu mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¢ le{k vkosnu fd;k fd vtZu èkkjk 165¼6½ d¢ mYyaÄu esa gS & og eatwj fd;k x;k & ,slk vkns'k dysDVj }kjk vikLr fd;k x;k & mi[kaM vfèkdkjh Òwfe vtZu dh dk;Zokgh vikLr ugha dj ldrk & Òwfe d¢ vtZu ij vk{ksi foyac rFkk ykijokgh ls xzLr & ;kfpdk d¢oy mDr vkèkkj ij [kkfjt fd, tkus ;¨X; & [kkfjt dh xÃA ¼2019½ 15 ,l lh lh 633] ¼2006½ 4 ,l lh lh 322] ¼2007½ 9 ,l lh lh 78] ¼2007½ 9 ,l lh lh 274] ¼2007½ 12 ,l lh lh 779] ¼2006½ 11 ,l lh lh 464] ¼1997½ 6 ,l lh lh 538] ¼2007½ 9 ,l lh lh 278] ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 179] ¼2008½ 10 ,l lh lh 115] ¼2010½ 2 ,l lh lh 59] ¼1977½ 3 ,l lh lh 396] ¼1976½ 3 ,l lh lh 579 rFkk ¼2011½ 4 ,l lh lh 374 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11] 27 ,oa 51½
¼2½ vtZu & 'kwU;@'kwU;dj.kÊ; gS ;k ugha & eqdnesckt }kjk Lo;a ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;fn ;kphx.k dh jk; esa vtZu fdlh vPNs ;k cqjs dkj.k ls 'kwU; Fkk rks mUgsa ml ij vk{ksi djuk pkfg, FkkA ¼2006½ 7 ,l lh lh 470] ¼2016½ 9 ,l lh lh 44 rFkk ¼2011½ 3 ,l lh lh 363 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 30 ,oa 34½
¼3½ focaèk & fl)kar dk ykxw g¨uk & Òwfe vtZu vfèkfu;e] 1894 d¢ vèkhu Òwfe vftZr & Òwfe d¢ cnys esa ÒwfeLokeh }kjk çfrdj rFkk çfr"Bku esa dqVqac d¢ lnL;¨a dh u©dfj;ka Lohdkj dh xbZ & ÒwfeLokeh@;kphx.k dk;Zokgh vk{ksfir djus ls focafèkr gS -- oLrqr% og vtZu dk;Zokgh ij vk{ksi djus dk viuk vfèkdkj R;kx pqd¢ gSaA ¼2003½ 5 ,l lh lh 1] ¼2011½ 2 ,l lh lh 554] ¼2014½ 15 ,l lh lh 144] ¼2013½ 5 ,l lh lh 470] ¼2020½ 6 ,l lh lh 387] ¼2014½ 16 ,l lh lh 472] ¼2006½ 7 ,l lh lh 756 rFkk ¼2004½ 8 ,l lh lh 229 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 35½
¼4½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165¼6½ & vuqKk dh vis{kk rFkk ç;¨tu & vkfne tutkfr;¨a dh Òwfe;¨a d¢ lacaèk esa laO;ogkj¨a dks fu;af=r djuk] rkfd csÃeku O;fDr;¨a }kjk mud¢ lkFk /kks[kk ugha fd;k tk ld¢ & ewy ç;¨tu vkfne tutkfr;¨a ds lnL;¨a d¨ fdlh Hkh diV ls lqjf{kr j[kuk gSA ¼2002½ 2 ,l lh lh 333 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 46 ,oa 47½
¼5½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165¼6½ & vuqKk dh vis{kk rFkk ç;¨tu & vkfne tutkfr;¨a d¢ lnL;¨a dh Òwfe vftZr & Lo;a dysDVj vtZu dk;Zokgh esa varoZfyr & jkT; ljdkj d¨ dysDVj ls vuqKk çkIr djus dh vko';drk ugha & vuqKk çnku djus ls iwoZ] dysDVj }kjk d¢oy ;g ns[kk tkuk visf{kr fd çLrkfor laO;ogkj cktkj ewY; d¢ vuqlkj gS ;k ugha vFkok vkfne tutkfr d¢ lnL; d¢ lkFk /kks[kk fd;k tk jgk gS ;k ugha & ewy ç;¨tu vkfne tutkfr;¨a ds lnL;¨a d¨ fdlh Hkh diV ls lqjf{kr j[kuk gSA ¼iSjk 47½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165(6) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4, 6, 10 and 11 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 227 -- delay and laches -- effect -- land acquired -- compensation and jobs of family members accepted by land owner -- acquisition proceedings not challenged -- after 45 years, application under section 165 (6) of Code made before SDO that acquisition is in violation of section 165 (6) -- same allowed -- such order set aside by Collector -- SDO cannot set aside land acquisition proceedings -- challenge to acquisition of land suffers from delay and laches -- petition liable to be dismissed on said ground only -- dismissed. (2019) 15 SCC 633, (2006) 4 SCC 322, (2007) 9 SCC 78, (2007) 9 SCC 274, (2007) 12 SCC 779, (2006) 11 SCC 464, (1997) 6 SCC 538, (2007) 9 SCC 278, (2013) 12 SCC 179, (2008) 10 SCC 115, (2010) 2 SCC 59, (1977) 3 SCC 396, (1976) 3 SCC 579 and (2011) 4 SCC 374 followed. [Paras 11, 27 & 51]
(2) Acquisition -- void/voidable or not -- cannot be assessed by litigant on his own -- if petitioners were of view that acquisition is void for any good or bad reason, they should have assailed it. (2006) 7 SCC 470, (2016) 9 SCC 44 and (2011) 3 SCC 363 followed. [Paras 30 & 34]
(3) Estoppel -- applicability of principle -- land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- compensation and jobs of family members in establishment accepted by land owner in lieu of lands -- land owners/petitioners estopped from challenging proceedings - - in fact, they have waived their right to assail acquisition proceedings. (2003) 5 SCC 1, (2011) 2 SCC 554, (2014) 15 SCC 144, (2013) 5 SCC 470, (2020) 6 SCC 387, (2014) 16 SCC 472, (2006) 7 SCC 756 and (2004) 8 SCC 229 followed. [Para 35]
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165(6) -- requirement and purpose of permission -- to put check on transactions regarding lands belonging to aboriginal tribes so that they may not be defrauded by unscrupulous persons -- basic purpose is to save members of aboriginal tribes from any fraud. (2002) 2 SCC 333 followed. [Paras 46 & 47]
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165(6) -- requirement and purpose of permission -- lands belonging to members of aboriginal tribes acquired -- Collector himself involved in acquisition proceedings -- no need for State Government to obtain permission from Collector -- before granting permission, Collector is only required to see that proposed transaction is in accordance with market value or not, or whether member of aboriginal tribe is being defrauded or not -- basic purpose is to save member of aboriginal tribes from any fraud. [Para 47]
ORDER
1. By this common order, M.P. No.459/2022, M.P. No.461/2022, M.P. No.462/2022, M.P. No.464/2022, M.P. No.465/2022 & M.P. No.467/2022 shall be decided. For the sake of convenience, the facts of M.P. No.459/2022 shall be referred.
2. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 24.10.2020 passed by Additional Collector Baihar, District Balaghat in Revenue Appeal Case No.0029/Appeal/2019-20.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petitions in short are that certain pieces of land were acquired in the year 1977 for establishment of the respondent – M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. Malajkhand Copper Project, Tehsil Deosar, District Balaghat. The draft notification as well as the final notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act was not challenged by the petitioners.
4. It is the case of the respondent that even the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was also accepted by the petitioners without any protest. Jobs which were offered to the petitioners because of the acquisition of their lands were also accepted. Thereafter, it appears that under some misguided advice, the petitioners filed an application before Sub-Divisional Officer that since the acquisition was contrary to the provisions of section 165(6) of M.P.L.R. Code, therefore their land should be returned back.
5. It appears that the said application was allowed by SDO Baihar, District Balaghat in case No.4/A-23/year 2017-18, however it is not out of place to mention here that the copy of the order of SDO has not been filed along with this petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO Baihar, District Balaghat, the respondent preferred an Appeal before the Additional Collector Baihar, District Balaghat which was registered as Revenue Appeal No.29/Appeal/2019-20 and by order dated 24.10.2020, the appeal has been allowed and the application filed by the petitioners on the ground of violation of section 165(6) of M.P.L.R. Code was rejected.
7. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that since the acquisition of land was in violation of section 165(6) of M.P.L.R. Code, therefore the same is void. It is true that the petitioners did not challenge the acquisition which took place in the year 1977 but the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches because the void order can be challenged at any point of time. It is further submitted that section 165(6) of M.P.L.R. Code will include acquisition of land by the State Government and therefore, they are entitled for return of their land.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that final notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1977. The petitioners had accepted the compensation without any protest. The jobs offered to the family members of the owners were also accepted by the petitioners. Further, the petitioners never challenged the acquisition proceedings. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the draft notification or the final notification issued under section 4 or 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, then they should have challenged the same then and there. The petitioners after having accepted the compensation as well as the jobs in lieu of their land which was acquired are estopped from asking for reversion of their land on the ground of violation of section 165(6) of M.P.L.R. Code. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 165(6) of M.P.L.R. Code would not apply to the cases of acquisition. The counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Delay and laches
10. The undisputed facts are that the land of the petitioners or their predecessors was acquired for establishment of the respond
The court upheld the validity of land acquisition proceedings, emphasizing previous adjudication, statutory compliance, and the impact of delay and laches on claims against the acquisition.
The principle that delay and laches may result in the refusal of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Timely challenges are essential in land acquisition disputes; relief cannot be granted due to inordinate delay as established by the court's reaffirmation of the principle of laches.
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
The court emphasized that the acquisition for an industrial area could benefit a single company, and that delay in passing an award cannot be solely attributed to the authorities if the records were ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the benefits of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should not be available to litigants who have obtained interim orders preventing the acquiring a....
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to delay and laches in filing writ petitions, and the interpretation of Section 48 of the Land Acquisit....
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is a self-contained code, and the timely assertion of rights is crucial in exercising discretionary jurisdiction.
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
