Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(FULL BENCH)
Hemant Gupta, CJ, H. P. Singh and Vijay Kumar Shukla, JJ.
Bhagwanti Bai v. State of M. P.
Writ Petition No. 6563 of 2016 (Jabalpur): against ;
Decided on 9.5.2018
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 246(1) -- doctrine of federal supremacy -- Parliamentary legislation would prevail and State legislation will have to give way notwithstanding that State legislation is within demarcated field (List II) -- said principle will, however, prevail provided Parliamentary legislation is the dominant legislation and State legislation has effect of encroaching on a vital sphere of the subject or entry to which the dominant legislation is referable. JLJ 1970 SN 106 discussed. [Para 17
(3) Bhumigat Pipe Line, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ki Upyokta Ke Adhikaron Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (c), 2 (e), 2 (f) -- Act deals with 'portion of earth's surface' -- mere right of user to lay underground pipeline, cable and duct in subsoil of land in question -- does not deprive land owner of title or right to possess that land.
Held : The 'land' in the State Act means portion of 'earth's surface'. It is only surface of earth over which right of user is exercised by the State Act as against the Central Act, which takes all benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth. Therefore, the State Act only exercises the right of user to lay underground pipeline, cable and duct in the subsoil of land in question. By such laying of underground pipeline, cable and duct, the title to the land as well as the right to possess that land is intact in the hands of the land owner. The land owner is compensated on account of damage to the surface of the land and also provided compensation for not raising construction of any building or any other structure; construct or excavate any tank, well, reservoir, or dam; or plant any tree. Therefore, for limited and restricted use of surface of land, the land owner is compensated and that the land owner is neither deprived of the title nor possession thereof. Thus, the State Act is not repugnant to any of the provisions of any Central Statute. Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2017 decided on 6.4.2017 overruled.
[Paras 26 & 32
(4) Bhumigat Pipe Line, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ki Upyokta Ke Adhikaron Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012 (M. P.) -- S.2 (c), 2 (e), 2 (f) -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- Ss. 3 (p) and 105, Sch. IV -- Constitution of India - Art. 254 and Sch. VII -- State Act is not repugnant to Central Act as both operate in different fields -- Union Parliament does not have any legislative competence to enact any law in respect of matter which falls in List II of the 7th Schedule -- fact that Adhiniyam, 2012 is not in List IV of Central Act -- is of no effect.
Held: In terms of the State Act, compensation is paid for depriving the land owner of restricted use of surface of land when only right of user of surface of land is permitted to be used. Therefore, the State Act is not deriving its legislative competence from Entry 42 of the concurrent list, but it derives its legislative competence in respect of water, sewage, industrial waste from Entry 5, 6 and 17 of List II, of the 7th Schedule. (2014)12 SCC 65, (2017)2 SCC 538, (2017)2 SCC 585, (2018)1 SCC 407, (2012)7 SCC 106, AIR 1979 SC 898 and (2016)9 SCC 791 discussed and followed. 1970 JLJ SN 106 distinguished.
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 254 and Sch.VII -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- Ss.3 (p) and 105, Sch. IV -- M. P. Bhumigat Pipe Line, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ki Upyokta Ke Adhikaron Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012 -- S. 2 (c), 2 (e), 2 (f) -- Parliament has no power to touch a field which is reserved for State in List II of the 7th Schedule -- could not include any State Act in Fourth Schedule of the Central Act, as it does not have legislative competence -- non-inclusion of State Act in Fourth Schedule -- neither permissible nor will render State Act repugnant to Central Act, as both operate in different fields. [Paras 30 & 31
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && lkroha vuqlwph && vuqlwph esa izfof"V;k¡ && 'kfä iznÙk djus ds fy, ugha vfirq dsoy fo/kk;h 'kh"kZ vFkok fo/kku ds {ks= dk vkSj ml {ks= dk lhekadu djus ds fy, gSa ftlesa leqfpr fo/kku izofÙkZr gks ldrk gSA ¼2011½3 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&246¼1½ && ifjla?kh; izeq[krk dk fl)kar
&& bl ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh fd ge jkT; dk fo/kku lhekafdr {ks= ¼lwph 1½ ds Hkhrj gS lalnh; fo/kku vfHkHkkoh gksxk rFkk jkT; ds fo/kku dks ihNs gVuk gksxk && ijarq mä fl)kar rc vfHkHkkoh gksxk tc lalnh; fo/kku izeq[k gks vkSj jkT; fo/kku dk izHkko ,sls fo"k; ;k izfof"V ds egÙoiw.kZ {ks= ij vf/kØe.k dk gks ftlds laca/k esa izeq[k fo/kku gSA ¼2017½2 ,l lh lh 585 foosfprA ¼iSjk 17
¼3½ Hkwfexr ikbi ykbu] dscy ,oa MDV ¼Hkwfe dh mi;ksäk ds vfèkdkjksa dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 2012 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2 ¼x½] 2¼M-½] 2¼p½ && vfèkfu;e ^Hkw&lrg ds Hkkx* ds ckjs esa gS && iz'uxr Hkwfe ds uhps dh feêh esa Hkwfexr ikbi ykbu] dsoy rFkk MDV Mkyus dk mi;ksäk vf/kdkj ek= && Hkwfe ds Lokeh dks ml Hkwfe ds gd ;k dCts ds vf/kdkj ls oafpr ugha djrkA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jkT; vf/kfu;e esa ^Hkwfe* ls ^Hkw&lrg* dk Hkkx vfHkizsr gSA dsanzh; vf/kfu;e ds izfrdwy] ftlesa Hkwfe rFkk Hkwc) oLrqvksa ls mn~Hkwr leLr Qk;ns fy, x, gSa] jkT; vf/kfu;e }kjk dsoy Hkwfe dh lrg ij mi;ksäk vf/kdkj iz;qä fd;k x;k gSA vr%] jkT; vf/kfu;e esa iz'uxr Hkwfe ds uhps dh feêh esa Hkwfexr ikbiykbu] dosy rFkk MDV Mkyus dk mi;ksäk vf/kdkj ek= iz;qä fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj Hkwfexr ikbiykbu] dsoy rFkk MDV Mkyus ls Hkwfe ds gd ds lkFk&lkFk ml Hkwfe ij dCts dk vf/kdkj] Hkwfe ds Lokeh ds gkFkksa esa v{kq..k jgrk gSA Hkwfe ds Lokeh dks Hkwfe dh lrg ds uqDlku ds fy, izfrdj fn;k tkrk gS rFkk fdlh Hkou ;k vU; fdlh lajpuk dk fuekZ.k( fdlh rkykc] dqvk¡] tyk'k; ;k ck¡èk dk fuekZ.k ;k mR[kuu( vFkok fdlh o`{k dk jksi.k( ugha djus ds fy, Hkh izfrdj iznku fd;k tkrk gSA vr%] Hkwfe dh lrg ds lhfer vkSj fuc±f/kr mi;ksx ds fy, Hkwfe ds Lokeh dks izfrdj fn;k tkrk gS rFkk Hkwfe dk Lokeh u rks ml Hkwfe ds gd ls] vkSj u mlds dCts ls gh] oafpr gksrk gSA bl izdkj] jkT; vf/kfu;e] fdlh Hkh dsaæh; dkuwu ds fdlh Hkh mica/k ds fo#) ugha gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø& 91 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 6&4&2017 myVk x;kA
¼4½ Hkwfexr ikbi ykbu] dscy ,oa MDV ¼Hkwfe dh mi;ksäk ds vfèkdkjksa dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 2012 ¼e&iz&½ && /kkjk 2¼x½] 2¼M½] 2¼p½ && Hkwfe vtZu] iquokZlu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj vkSj ikjnf'kZrk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2013 && /kkjk 3¼r½ rFkk 105] pkSFkh vuqlwph && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq& 254 rFkk lkroha vuqlwph && jkT; vf/kfu;e] dsaæh; vf/kfu;e ds fo#) ugha gS D;kasfd nksuksa fHkUu {ks=ksa esa izofrZr gksrs gSa && la?k laln dks ,sls fdlh fo"k; ds ckjs esa dskbZ Hkh fof/k vf/kfu;fer djus dh fo/kk;h l{kerk ugha gS tks lkroha vuqlwph dh lwph 2 esa vkrk gS && ;g rF; fd vf/kfu;e] 2012 dsaæh; vf/kfu;e dh lwph 4 esa ugha gS && izHkkoghu gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % jkT; vf/kfu;e esa ^Hkwfe* dks ^Hkw&lrg dk Hkkx* ds vFkZ esa ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA Hkwfe esa mi;ksäk ds vf/kdkj ls vfHkizsr gS ty] xSl] ey] vkS+|ksfxd vif'k"V rFkk fo|qr ikjs"k.k] Qkboj vkWfIVDl vkfn ds fy, Hkwfexr ikbiykbu] dsoy vkSj MDV MkyukA mä iz;kstu u rks laifÙk dk vtZu gSa vkSj vf/kxzg.k gh] D;ksafd Lokeh] dsaæh; vf/kfu;e ds fuca/kuksa dh rjg] ftl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu Hkwfe ds vtZu ds fy, izfrdj lanÙk fd;k tkrk gS] vius LokfeRo vf/kdkjksa ls oafpr ugha gksrkA jkT; vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj] Hkwfe ds Lokeh dks Hkwfe dh lrg ls fucZaf/kr mi;ksx ls oafpr djus ds fy, izfrdj lanÙk fd;k tkrk gS tc dsoy Hkwfe ds Lokeh dks Hkwfe dh lrg ds mi;ksäk ds vf/kdkj dk mi;ksx gh vuqKkr fd;k tkrk gSA vr%] jkT; vf/kfu;e viuh fo/kk;h l{kerk leorhZ lwph dh izfof"V 42 ls izkIr ugha dj jgk vfirq] mls ty] ey] vkS|ksfxd vif'k"V ds laca/k esa viuh fo/kk;h l{kerk lkroha vuqlwph dh lwph 2 dh izfof"V 5] 6 rFkk 17 ls izkIr gksrh gSA ¼2014½12 ,l lh lh] 65 ¼2017½2 ,l lh lh 538] ¼2017½2 ,l lh lh 585] ¼2018½1 ,l lh lh 407] ¼2012½7 ,l lh lh 106] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 989 rFkk ¼2016½9 ,l lh lh 791 foosfpr rFkk vuqlfjrA ts ,y ts ,l ,u 106 izHksfnrA
¼iSjk 21 ,oa 34
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq&254 rFkk lkroha vuqlwph && Hkwfe vtZu] iquokZlu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj vkSj ikjnf'kZrk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2013 && /kkjk 3¼r½ rFkk 105] pkSFkh vuqlwph && Hkwfexr ikbi ykbu] dscy ,oa MDV ¼Hkwfe dh mi;ksäk ds vf/kdkjksa dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 2012 ¼e&iz&½ && /kkjk 2¼x½] 2¼M+½] 2¼p½ && laln dks ,slk {ks= Nwus dh 'kfä ugha gS tks lkroha vuqlwph dh lwph 2 esa jkT; ds fy, vkjf{kr gS && dsaæh; vf/kfu;e dh pkSFkh vuqlwph esa fdlh jkT; vf/kfu;e dks lfEefyr ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk D;ksafd mls fo/kk;h l{kerk ugha gS && pkSFkh vuqlwph esa jkT; vf/kfu;e dk lfEefyr ugha fd;k tkuk && u vuqKs; gS vkSj u mlls jkT; vf/kfu;e dsaæh; vf/kfu;e ds fo#) gh gks tk,xk] D;ksafd nksuksa fHkUu {ks=ksa esa izofrZr gksrs gSaA ¼iSjk 30 ,oa 31
Gupta, C.J. -- 1. A Division Bench of this Court on 27.3.2018 expressed its reservation with another Division Bench judgment of this Court passed on 6.4.2017 in bunch of appeals with main appeal bearing Writ Appeal No. 91/2017 (Narmada Valley Development Authority and others v. Shashikant Patel) [Indore Bench], and the matter was referred to the Larger Bench on the following questions :
“(1) Whether the State Act deals with acquisition of land or only deals with grant of compensation for use of surface of land?
(2) Whether the Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipeline, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ke Upyokta Ke Adhikaran Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2013 is repugnant to the Central Act for the reason that the same does not find mention in ScheduleIV of the Central Act, therefore, the State Act will not have any force of law?”
2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in appeal before the Supreme Court being Diary No.22153/2017 directed against an order passed by this Court in Narmada Valley Development Authority and others v. Balu, (for short ‘NVDA’), the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order of giving liberty to the appellant to file a review application in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and others v. State of Gujarat and others, [(2016)9 SCC 791]. Admittedly no review petition has been filed, therefore, as of now the order passed by the Division Bench in NVDA’s case is operative.
3. The State Government enacted “The Madhya Pradesh Bhumigat Pipe Line, Cable Evam Duct (Bhumi Ki Upyokta Ke Adhikaron Ka Arjan) Adhiniyam, 2012” [for short the ‘State Act’], providing for acquisition of right or user in land for laying underground pipeline, cable and duct for carrying of water, gas, sewage, industrial waste and transmission of electricity and fibre optics and for the matters connected therewith or incident thereto.
4. The Division Bench in NVDA’s case held that the State Act does not find mention in Schedule IV of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the ‘Central Act’). Therefore, the State is under obligation to pay compensation as per the Central Act. It was also held that the Central Act will supercede the State Act enacted by the State Legislature.
5. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Schedule IV of the Central Act has saved thirteen central legislations in terms of section 105 of the Central Act. Since the State Act is not included in Schedule IV of the Central Act, therefore, the State Act will stand superceded or abrogated by the Central Act. It is argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Laljibhai’s case deals with another Central Act namely the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of the Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [for short the ‘Petroleum Act’]. Therefore, the said judgment will not be relevant for determining the validity of the State Act. It is also pointed out that the Petroleum Act is one of the statutes which are mentioned in Schedule IV of the Central Act.
6. It is argued that the State Legislature is not competent to enact the State Act, as the Act in question derives its power to legislate in terms of Entry 42 of List III, of 7th Schedule of the Constitution, therefore, the State Act could not be enacted by the State Legislature as the Central Act is in force. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Supreme Court judgment reported as State of Kerala and others v. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and another, [(2012)7 SCC 106], in support of his contention that the State Act is repugnant to the Central Act. The relevant paragraph relied upon by the Petitioner reads as under :
“78. To sum up, Articles 246(1), (2) and 254(1) provide that to the extent to which a State law is in conflict with or repugnant to the Central law, which Parliament is competent to make, the Central law shall prevail and the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
