Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Mahanth Ghanshyam Puri – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 29476 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition - Impugned order set aside without hearing petitioner - Remand for rehearing and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of an order by the Collector under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, which declared the acquisition in respect of the petitioner's land as having lapsed without issuing notice or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and that the Collector could not have set aside the order in favor of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Issues: The main issue was the legality and validity of the order declaring the acquisition in respect of the petitioner's land as having lapsed without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court set aside the portion of the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Collector for rehearing after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned, in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of, with the matter remanded back to the Collector for rehearing after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned.
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has impugned the legality and validity of the order dated 01.10.2018 by which the power has been exercised by the Collector under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and was declared the acquisition in respect of the land of a third person as having lapsed. While passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has set aside the order of lapsing which was passed in the case of the petitioner in Case No.03/A-6(a)2009-10 vide order dated 14.06.2011, even without issuing notice to the petitioner and granting opportunity of hearing.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the owner of the adjoining Khasra No. 51 preferred an application before respondent No. 2 for release of land bearing Khasra No. 51 on the same consideration and was accorded in the case of the petitioner with regard to Khasra No. 52. The Collector has passed the impugned order at the same time in Para 15.2 of the impugned order has set aside the order of lapsing dated 14.06.2011 without hearing the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that apparently on perusal of the order, it is seen that the petitioner is neither a party nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to him before passing the order.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings and, therefore, the Collector i.e. respondent No. 2 could not have set aside the order dated 14.06.2011 passed in favour of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 Para 15.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector-respondent No. 2 for rehearing after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned, in accordance with law and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
8. In view of the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
The legal principle established is that the Collector cannot set aside an order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Collector must consider the period of limitation and the reasons for delay before rejecting an application for condonation of delay in fil....
Determination of amount of compensation – Reference to appropriate authority – Collector has no jurisdiction to go into such question.
The period for seeking reference under the Land Acquisition Act runs from the date of knowledge of the award, ensuring fairness in the process.
The provision for seeking condonation of delay under Section 64(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 influenced the cou....
Section 64 of 2013, Act, reads as reference to Authority.
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
