SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(MP) 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Bhairo Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitions No.8448 of 2006 and 3513 of 2008 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 7.9.2016.

Advocates:
Avinash Zargar for petitioners in both petitions;
Smt. Janhavi Pandit, Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 in both petitions;
Vibudhendra Mishra for respondents No.2 in both petitions.6

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.4 r/w S.17 -- notification published under for acquisition -- possession of land in question taken long back -- Housing Board already developed land and raised construction thereover -- there are more housing schemes in offing -- no rule to support that possession of land must be taken in particular manner -- relief of petitioners that their possession be not disturbed -- as they chosen not to take compensation -- cannot be given -- both petitions dismissed.

       Held : In the case at hand, no rule or regulation framed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been commended at, as would lend support to the contention that the possession of land must be taken in particular manner.

       Since the land in question has been taken possession of long back in the year 1996-97 and that the Housing Board has already developed the land and raised construction thereover, with more housing scheme in the offing, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be given. (1970)2 SCC 149, (1993)4 SCC 369, (1996)4 SCC 212 and (2013)4 SCC 280 followed. (2015)10 SCC 241 distingushed.

        Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 4 lgifBr /kkjk 17 & vtZu ds fy, mica/kksa ds v/khu vf/klwpuk izdkf'kr & iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk dCtk cgqr igys ys fy;k x;k & x`g fuekZ.k eaMy igys&gh Hkwfe fodflr dj pqdk rFkk ml ij fuekZ.k dj pqdk & fudV Hkfo"; esa vkSj Hkh vf/kd vkoklh; ;kstuk,a gSa & ;g leFkZu djus ds fy, dksbZ fu;e ugha fd Hkwfe dk dCtk fof'k"V rjg ls fy;k tkuk pkfg, & ;kphx.k dk vuqrks"k fd mudk dCtk fo{kqC/k u gks & D;ksafd mUgksaus {kfriwfrZ u ysuk pqu fy;k gS & ugha fn;k tk ldrk & nksuksa ;kfpdk,a [kkfjtA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % orZeku ekeys esa] Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 esa fojfpr dksbZ fu;e ;k fofu;e }kjk ;g flQkfj'k ugha dh xbZ fd og bl izfrokn dk leFkZu djsxk fd Hkwfe dk dCtk fof'k"V rjg ls fy;k tkuk pkfg,A

       pw¡fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk dCtk o"kZ 1996&97 esa cgqr igys ys fy;k x;k rFkk x`g fuekZ.k eaMy Hkwfe fodflr dj pqdk rFkk fudV Hkfo"; esa vkSj vf/kd vkoklh; ;kstukvksa ds lkFk ml ij fuekZ.k dj pqdkA ;kph }kjk pkgk x;k vuqrks"k ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼1970½ 2 ,l lh lh 149] ¼1993½ 4 ,l lh lh 369] ¼1996½ 4 ,l lh lh 212 rFkk ¼2013½ 4 ,l lh lh 280 vuqlfjrA ¼2015½ 10 ,l lh lh 241 izHksfnrA

       

ORDER

1. This common order shall lead to disposal of both the aforesaid writ petitions as the issue raised therein are similar.

2. Invoking urgency clause section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1894 Act’), the State Government vide notification under section 4 read with section 17, published in daily Dainik Bhaskar dated 4.8.1992 for housing project of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, notified 2.992 Hectares of land situated at Bagh Mughaliya and 3.725 Hectares of land situated at Bagh Sewaniya, Tahsil Huzur District Bhopal, including the land belonging to the petitioners situated in these two villages, for acquisition. That, an Award was passed on 16.9.1994 in Land Acquisition Case No.4-A-82/91-92. The beneficiary i.e. the Housing Board deposited amount of Rs.41,33,879/- vide Cheque on 27.8.1994, 31.9.1995, 7.2.1995 and 13.2.1995. Possession of land at Bagh Sewaniya bearing Khasra No.139, 140, 143, 199, 200, 144/1, 145, 146, 147, 149/1, 152, 196, 153, 154, 191, 167, 190, 171, 179, 180, 181, 283, 254, 193, 195, 198, 201, 197, 275, 211, 279, 278, 274, 280, 281, 381, 278, 161 and 165 Total Area 9.30 Acres was given to the beneficiary vide Panchnama dated 16.2.1996. The possession of remaining land of Village Bagh Sewaniya was given to Housing Board on 7.4.1997. The Housing Board, thereafter, developed five blocks and constructed 56 residential units and 12 shops and are now set with the second phase of construction.

3. That, one of the land owner (other than these petitioners) had approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.2764/1999, seeking direction that the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from land situated at Village Bagh Sewaniya. The petition was disposed of on 17.12.1999 in the following terms :

By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the land situate at Village Bagh Savehia, bearing Patwari Halka No.20 in the district of Bhopal bearing Khasra No.146, 148, 147 and 149 as he has purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 16.5.94 from the son of Late Badri Prasad. Counter affidavits have been filed by the State Government as well as M.P. Grih Nirman Board, Bhopal contending inter alia that the aforesaid land was acquired by the State Government by notification dated 18.9.1992 and an award has already been passed on 16.9.1994. Submission of Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the State is that the entire land including the disputed Khasras are covered under the aforesaid notification. Keeping in view the aforesaid stand, it is hereby made clear that the Khasras which find mention in the notification possession can be taken over by the State Government/Housing Board and the area in question which is not covered by the notification shall remain unaffected. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

4. Be it noted that in the said Writ Petition i.e. WP-2764-1999, status quo was also ordered on 27.10.1999.

5. Pertinent it is to note that the land owners were informed for receiving compensation; however, representations were filed stating that since they are in possession, they do not intend to take the compensation but, to retain their possession. It is in the realm of these facts that the petitioners have remained in possession over the land in question.

6. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking direction that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession over the land in question and a further direction to release the land in question from the acquisition.

7. Question is that, once in furtherance to invocation of urgency clause and the Award having been passed and the possession of land acquired is given, resulting in vesting of land in the Government /beneficiary, whether it will be open for the erstwhile land-owners to






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top