Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Union of India and others v. State of M. P. and others
Writ Petitions No. 5794 of 2013, 6619 of 2013 and 238 of 2014 (Gwalior); Decided on 16.3.2018
(2) Works of Defence Act, 1903 -- Ss.3,7,9 and 12 -- restrictions imposed by notification -- duty of Collector -- cause land to be marked out and measured -- prepare a register and detailed plan -- issue notice to interested persons within 3 years -- has to inquire and thereafter may pass award or grant compensation. [Paras 8 & 9
(3) Works of Defence Act, 1903 -- S.2(b) -- expression "person interested" - is "inclusive in nature" and not "exhaustive in nature" -- includes those who have to disburse compensation or who want to protect exact status of land. 1995 (Supp.) 2 SCC 348 and (2011)2 SCC 54 followed. [Para 34
(4) Words and Phrases -- word "means" indicates that definition is a hard-and-fast one, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than as put down in definition -- word "includes" enlarges meaning to include those things which the clause declares that they shall include -- words "means and includes" indicate exhaustive explanation of meaning. (1891)2 QB 665, (1990)3 SCC 682, 1899 AC 99, (1989)1 SCC 164, AIR 1989 SC 335 and (2011)2 SCC 54 followed. [Para 35
(5) Works of Defence Act, 1903 -- Ss.2 (b) and 12 -- Collector is the authority with certain responsibilities of different provisions of Act -- does not take away rights of Union of India wherein they cannot raise any ground in respect of proceeding at all. [Para 41
¼1½ j{kk ladeZ vf/kfu;e] 1903 && /kkjk 2¼[k½] 7] 9 rFkk 12 && vfèklwpuk fnukad 30&8&2005 ds dkj.k] ftlds }kjk MhvkjMhbZ ifjlj dh ckgjh nhokj ds f'k[kj ls 200 eh& ds Hkhrj Hkwfe ds mi;ksx vkSj miHkksx ij fuc±/ku vfèkjksfir fd, x, gSa] izR;FkhZ Ø& 3 dks fuekZ.k dh vuqKk ugha nh xbZ && izR;FkhZ Ø& 3 us izfrdj ds vf/kfu.kZ;u ds fy, dyDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV ds le{k vkosnu fn;k && ;kphx.k dks lwfpr fd, fcuk rFkk lquokbZ dk volj fn, fcuk vkf{kIr vkns'k ikfjr && vfHkO;fä ßfgrc) O;fäÞ && og lfEefyr gSa ftUgsa izfrdj laforfjr djuk gS && ;kphx.k vko';d i{kdkj gSa && lquk tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼1994½4 ,l lh lh 737] 1995 ¼lIyh&½2 ,l lh lh 348] ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 54] ¼1995½2 ,l lh lh 326] 1994 ¼lIyh&½3 ,l lh lh 734 rFkk ¼1993½1 ,l lh lh 348 vuqlfjrA lh& MCY;w& ih& Ø& 8707 lu~ 1999 ¼iatkc rFkk gfj&½ rFkk ¼2003½2 ,l lh lh 128 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 34] 38 ,oa 40
¼2½ j{kk ladeZ vf/kfu;e] 1903 && /kkjk 3] 7] 9 rFkk 12 && vf/klwpuk }kjk fuc±/ku vf/kjksfir && dyDVj dk drZO; && Hkwfe fpfUgr djkuk vkSj mldk eki djokuk && jftLVj vkSj C;kSjsokj uD'kk rS;kj djuk && fgrc) O;fä;ksa dks 3 o"kZ ds Hkhrj lwpuk tkjh djuk && tk¡p djuk gksxh vkSj rRi'pkr~ vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr dj ldrk gS vFkok izfrdj iznku dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9
¼3½ j{kk ladeZ vf/kfu;e] 1903 && /kkjk 2¼[k½ && vfHkO;fä ßfgrc) O;fäÞ && ß'kkfeykrh izÑfrÞ dh gS] ßfu%'ks"k izÑfrÞ dh ugha && og lfEefyr gSa ftUgsa izfrdj laforfjr djuk gS vFkok tks Hkwfe dh ;Fkkor~ izkfLFkfr lajf{kr djuk pkgrs gSaA 1995¼lIyh½2 ,l lh lh 348 rFkk ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 54 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 34
¼4½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k && 'kCn ßvFkZÞ ls bafxr gS fd ifjHkk"kk vfrfu;efu"B gS rFkk vfHkO;fä dks ml vFkZ ds vykok] tks ifjHkk"kk esa fn;k x;k gS] vU; dksbZ vFkZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk && 'kCn ßlfEefyrÞ vFkZ dks mUgsa lfEefyr djus gsrq foLr`r dj nsrk gS tks [kaM esa ?kksf"kr fd, x, gksa fd lfEefyr gksaxs && 'kCn ßvFkZ gS rFkk lfEefyr gSÞ ls vFkZ dk fu%'ks"k Li"Vhdj.k bafxr gksrk gSA ¼1891½2 D;wch 665] ¼1990½3 ,l lh lh 682] 1899 ,lh 99] ¼1989½1 ,l lh lh 164] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 335 rFkk ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 54 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 35
¼5½ j{kk ladeZ vf/kfu;e] 1903 && /kkjk 2¼[k½ rFkk 12 && dyDVj og izkf/kdkjh gS ftl ij vf/kfu;e ds fofHkUu mica/kksa ds dfri; mÙkjnkf;Ro gSa && Hkkjr ds la?k ds vf/kdkj fNu ugha tkrs ftuls og dk;Zokgh ds ckjs esa dksbZ vkèkkj mBk gh ugha ldsA ¼iSjk 41
1. Writ Petition No. 5794/2013 and 6619/2013 were heard on same date and kept reserved for orders. After keeping those writ petitions reserved, on a later date, Writ Petition No. 238/2014 was also heard and looking to similar nature of controversy, all the petitions are decided by a common order, just to avoid the repetition and to preserve the resources.
2. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6619/2013 (respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 5794/2013) is seeking relief in the form of direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to make payment of compensation to the petitioner along with penal interest.
3. Facts of Writ Petition No. 5794/2013 are taken into consideration initially. Thereafter, facts of Writ Petition No. 238/2014 are taken separately in succeeding paragraphs.
4. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners/ Union of India being crestfallen by the order dated 30th July, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Gwalior whereby as per the allegations, respondent No. 1 proceeded with the order without noticing the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing and the amount of Rs. 4,60,00,000/- has been awarded as compensation to respondent No. 2 and petitioners have been directed to make payment of the said amount to respondent No. 2 within fifteen days from the date of award with default stipulation.
5. Precisely stated facts of the case as narrated in the pleadings are that respondent No. 2 owns a plot ad measuring 6000 sq. ft. situate at survey No. 474 min. at village Mahalgaon, Gwalior which was purchased by her by registered sale deed dated 5.11.2007 against consideration of Rs.17,00,000/- only, vide annexure P-2. It is submitted that on the left side of the petitioners’ plot after the railway track, campus of petitioner No. 3/ Defence Research & Development Establishment, Gwalior (for short “DRDE”) is situated which is a unit under the control of petitioners No. 1 and 2.
6. Respondent No. 2 applied to Municipal Corporation, Gwalior for construction of an eye hospital over the said plot which was refused on account of a notification dated 30.8.2005 issued under the provisions of section 3 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short “Defence Act”) by the Central Government whereby restrictions deemed necessary under Clause (c) of section 7 of the Defence Act upon the use and enjoyment of the said land comprised in the area lying within a distance approximately 200 mtrs. (218 yards) from the crest outer parapet of petitioner No. 3 was imposed.
7. It appears that respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 3114/2012 seeking direction for the petitioners to grant NOC to respondent No. 2 herein. In the said petition, petitioners No. 1 to 3 were also impleaded as respondents. After completion of pleadings, petition was listed for hearing on 29.7.2013 and on that date, petition was withdrawn by respondent No. 3. It further appears that on 5.8.2013, petitioner No. 3 was served with the impugned order dated 30.7.2013 (Annexure P-1) whereby award of compensation to respondent No. 3 was passed with a direction to petitioners to make the payment of the said award to respondent No. 2. On examination, it was revealed that during pendency of Writ Petition No. 3114/2012, respondent No. 3 on 8.7.2013, filed an application before respondent No. 2/ Collector/ District Magistrate for award of compensation under the Defence Act and respondent No.1 without noticing petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order which according to petitioners is arbitrary and illegal.
8. According to counsel for the petitioners, Union of India issued a notification on 30th August, 2005 in SOR No.105 while using the power conferred under section 3 of the Defence Act to impose restrictions specified in Clause (c) of section 7 of the Defence Act, therefore, on account of aforesaid provision, restriction was imposed. Respondent No.
SupremeToday
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
