Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J.
Jagdish Prasad Shukla & Others v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 10144 of 2014 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 22.11.2023
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- petition for compensation -- land of petitioners utilised by State authorities for construction of road in year 1975 -- neither land acquired, nor compensation given -- suit pending for injunction and declaration against State authorities -- cause of action shown to be attempt of respondent No. 6 to widen road by taking additional land of petitioners -- pendency of writ petition duly disclosed in plaint -- right of petitioners to claim compensation for land already utilised for construction of road in 1975-76 not affected in any manner by suit. [Para 8]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- petition for compensation -- land of petitioners utilised by State authorities for construction of road in year 1975 -- neither land acquired, nor compensation given -- case is of forcible dispossession without acquisition -- no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- State duty bound to adhere to law relating to compulsory acquisition while taking away property of citizen, otherwise action of State would be violating Constitutional guarantee to citizen. [Para 8]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- delay -- petition for compensation -- land of petitioners utilised by State authorities for construction of road in year 1975 -- neither land acquired, nor compensation given -- delay has to be examined on touchstone of violation of Constitutional right -- State cannot take shelter of plea of delay when it has blatantly abused its position of eminent domain in depriving citizen of his right to property. (2022) 7 SCC 508 followed. [Paras 8 & 9]
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- delay -- petition for compensation -- land of petitioners utilised by State authorities for construction of road in year 1975 -- neither land acquired, nor compensation given -- State violated Constitutional guarantee given to citizen by not adhering to law relating to compulsory acquisition of land -- petitioners entitled to compensation for land unauthorisedly utilized by State -- as dispossession took place in 1975-76, compensation, solatium, etc. be determined in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (applicable on date of dispossession) as per market value of land on date of possession -- petitioners also entitled to interest as per S. 34 of Act of 1894 from date of possession till date of actual payment. [Paras 12 & 13]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & çfrdj ds fy, ;kfpdk & jkT; çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk o"kZ 1975 esa lM+d ds fuekZ.k ds fy, ;kphx.k dh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k & u rks Hkwfe vftZr dh xbZ] u çfrdj gh fn;k x;k & jkT; çkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) O;kns'k vkSj ?kks"k.kk ds fy, okn yafcr & n'kkZ;k x;k okn gsrqd çR;FkhZ Øekad 6 }kjk ;kphx.k dh vfrfjä Hkwfe ysdj lM+d pkSM+h djus dk ç;Ru & fjV ;kfpdk dk yacu okni= esa lE;Øwis.k çdV fd;k x;k & 1975&1976 esa lM+d ds fuekZ.k ds fy, igys gh mi;ksx dh tk pqdh Hkwfe ds fy, çfrdj dk nkok djus dk ;kphx.k dk vf/kdkj okn ls fdlh çdkj ls çHkkfor ughaA ¼iSjk 8½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & çfrdj ds fy, ;kfpdk & jkT; çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk o"kZ 1975 esa lM+d ds fuekZ.k ds fy, ;kphx.k dh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k & u rks Hkwfe vftZr dh xbZ] u çfrdj gh fn;k x;k & ekeyk vtZu ds fcuk cykr~ csdCtk fd, tkus dk gS & fdlh Hkh O;fä dks] fofèk ds çkf/kdkj ds fcuk ds flok;] mldh laifÙk ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk,xk & ukxfjd dh laifÙk ysrs le; jkT; vfuok;Z vtZu ls lacaf/kr fof/k dk ikyu djus dks vkc)] vU;Fkk jkT; ds —R; ls ukxfjd dh lkafo/kkfud çR;kHkwfr dk vfrØe.k gksxkA ¼iSjk 8½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & foyac & çfrdj ds fy, ;kfpdk & jkT; çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk o"kZ 1975 esa lM+d ds fuekZ.k ds fy, ;kphx.k dh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k & u rks Hkwfe vftZr dh xbZ u çfrdj gh fn;k x;k & foyac dks lkafo/kkfud vf/kdkj ds vfrØe.k dh dlkSVh ij ij[kuk gksxk & tc jkT; us ukxfjd dks mlds laifÙk ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr djus esa vius loksZifj vf/kdkj dh çkfLFkfr dk ?kksj nq:i;ksx fd;k gS rks og foyac ds vfHkokd~ dk vkJ; ugha ys ldrkA ¼2022½ 7 ,llhlh 508 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & foyac & çfrdj ds fy, ;kfpdk & jkT; çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk o"kZ 1975 esa lM+d ds fuekZ.k ds fy, ;kphx.k dh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k & u rks Hkwfe vftZr dh xbZ] u çfrdj gh fn;k x;k & jkT; us Hkwfe ds vfuok;Z vtZu ls lacaf/kr fof/k dk ikyu ugha dj ukxfjd dks nh xbZ lkafo/kkfud çR;kHkwfr dk vfrØe.k fd;k & ;kphx.k jkT; }kjk vçkfèk—r :i ls mi;ksx dh xbZ Hkwfe ds fy, çfrdj ds gdnkj & lu~ 1975&1976 esa csdCtk fd;k x;k blfy, çfrdj] rks"k.k] vkfn Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e- 1894 ¼csdCtk fd, tkus ds fnukad dks ykxw½ ds vuqlkj] dCts ds fnukad dks Hkwfe ds cktkj ewY; ds vuq:i vo/kkfjr fd;k tk, & ;kphx.k dCts ds fnukad ls okLrfod lank; ds fnukad rd lu~ 1894 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34 ds vuqlkj C;kt ds Hkh gdnkjA ¼iSjk 12 ,oa 13½
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the action of the respondents in constructing a road on the land of the petitioners without acquisition. They further seek a direction to the respondents to award proper compensation to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. The counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners own a total land measuring 2.24 Acres in survey No. 743 situated at Village Karahiya, Tehsil Huzur, Distt. Rewa. The said land adjoins Government land in survey No. 742. Out of the private land of the petitioners, 1.04 acres has been unauthorisedly utilised by the State authorities for construction of road. This has been done without any acquisition, nor giving any compensation to the petitioners. It is also stated that when the petitioners got the land demarcated, then it became clear that the land of the petitioners has been utilised for construction of road. This demarcation report dated 24.6.2013 is on record as Annexure P-3. This report clearly mentions that the road has been constructed in 1.04 acres of land in survey No. 743 (private land of the petitioners). However, the land has not been acquired, nor any compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6 (M.P. Road Development Corporation), while referring to its reply has argued that the road in question was earlier operated by Public Works Department (PWD), and has been transferred to respondent No.6 very recently while it was constructed sometime around the year 1975 by the PWD, hence, the respondent No.6 are not liable to pay any compensation. It is also stated that the petitioner has also filed a civil suit in the matter.
4. The respondents No. 1 to 5-State Government and its functioneries have stated in their separate reply and referring to the same, the learned Government counsel has submitted that the petition is highly belated, as the road was constructed sometime around the year 1975.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the petitioners own land, total area measuring 2.24 hectares in survey No. 743 situated at Village Karahiya, Tehsil Huzur, Distt. Rewa. The said land adjoins Government land in survey No. 742. Out of the private land of the petitioners, 1.04 acres has been utilised by the State authorities for construction of road sometime in the year 1975. This has been done without any acquisition, nor giving any compensation to the petitioners. The demarcation report dated 24.6.2013 is on record as Annexure P-3. This report clearly mentions that the road has been constructed in 1.04 acres of land in survey No. 743 (private land of the petitioners). These facts are undisputed as per the pleadings of the rival parties.
7. The document annexure P-6 dated 5.9.2013 is a letter written by the Additional Collector, Distt. Rewa to the Sub-Diviisonal Officer, directing to enquire about the claim of the petitioners for compensation. The document Annexure P-9 dated 13.2.2014 written by the Tehsildar shows that the private land of the petitioners has been utilised for road in 1975 and the Tehsildar has written that information as to acquisition of the said land can only be given by the Public Works Department, which has constructed the road. From the document Annexure P-11 dated 28.4.2014, it is shown that the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department has written to the respondent No.6 for taking action in the matter of compensation.
8. Thus, this fact is well established that 1.04 acres private land of the petitioners has been utilised for construction of road sometime in the year 1975-76 by the Public Works Department.
Objection as to pendency of suit.
The objection as to pendency of suit is required to be considered. As per the inj
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Landowners have a constitutional right to compensation for land utilized for public projects, and claims cannot be dismissed based on implied consent or delay in seeking redress.
Landowners cannot be deprived of their property without due process and just compensation, regardless of implied consent due to prolonged silence on compensation claims.
The right to property is a constitutional right under Article 300-A, and deprivation without due process is violative of human rights.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
The right to property under Article 300-A mandates compensation for land acquisition, and the State cannot deprive landowners of their property without due process and compensation.
Welfare State cannot deprive property without due process and compensation under Article 300A; cannot plead adverse possession or delay against owners seeking payment for land used in public road con....
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
