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

2025 Supreme(MP) 586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Vivek Rusia, J.
Kesar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And Ors. And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7124 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10319 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10321 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10322 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10324 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10326 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10327 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10328 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10329 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 10330 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 12454 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 12837 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 12840 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 2016 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 5844 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 6631 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 6633 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7187 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7193 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7194 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7196 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7198 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7200 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7202 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7205 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7207 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7213 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7332 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7336 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 7901 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8444 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8449 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8454 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8516 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8833 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8882 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8885 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8886 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 8924 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 9048 of 2013, Writ Petition No. 9693 of 2013
Decided On : 09-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Yogesh Mittal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Sunil Jain, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Sharma, Advocate, Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, G.A.

Court held that land acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements, such as preparing a housing scheme and addressing objections, are not fulfilled, leading to non-compliance with the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5A, and 6 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Writ petitions challenging notifications regarding land acquisition - Landowners contended that acquisition proceedings were flawed due to a failure to prepare housing schemes prior to acquisition and lack of adherence to statutory requirements, including deposit of 10% compensation - Court noted that objections from landowners were not properly addressed by the Collector, resulting in the quashing of acquisition proceedings - The court emphasized that as per the 2013 Act, all proceedings had lapsed since no award was passed. (Paras 1-36)

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of Judicial intervention in land acquisition matters - The court can quash acquisition proceedings if statutory non-compliance is evident. (Paras 28-33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, landowners, challenged the acquisition notifications for residential development, alleging absence of a finalized housing scheme, procedural irregularities, and non-deposit of statutory compensation. The interim order had maintained status-quo regarding land possession pending court adjudication.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that mandates of the LA Act were not adhered to, specifically the failure to prepare housing schemes and hear objections properly by the Collector.

Issues: The main issues included failure in procedural compliance under the LA Act, particularly regarding the housing scheme and dealing with objections raised by landowners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory requirements for land acquisition were not followed, leading to the conclusion that without a housing scheme, acquisition proceedings could not proceed, and thus quashed the notifications and orders related to the land acquisition.

Result: Writ petitions allowed, acquisition notifications quashed.

Table of Content
1. petitions contest land acquisition notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's objections to the acquisition. (Para 4)
3. grounds raised by the petitioner against the acquisition. (Para 5 , 6)
4. arguments on the need for a housing scheme before acquisition. (Para 10 , 12 , 16)
5. court's observations on necessity of housing schemes. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
6. mandate for proper objection hearings. (Para 25 , 28)
7. outcome of the petitions and consequences of noncompliance. (Para 36 , 37)

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

All the petitioners being land owners have filed these present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 06.04.2012 passed under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “L.A. Act”), orders dated 22.03.2013 & 30.03.2013 passed under Section 5A of the L.A. Act and declaration dated 04.04.2013 under Section 6 of the L.A. Act.

2. This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid Writ Petitions. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in these petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No. 7124 of 2013 are taken.

3. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER

3.1. The petitioner is the owner of Lands bearing survey no. 211 part, 215-part, 254/1 part & 255/2 total admeasuring 5 hectares of land at village Palakhedi, Tehsil Hatod, District Indore. The petitioner got the development permission u/s 30 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short “Adhiniyam 1973”) and all other statutory permissions for the development of Residential Plots.

3.2. Respondent No. 1 is the State of M.P. through the Principal Secretary Housing & Environment Department. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are Commissioner, Collector and Upper Collector, Respondents No. 5 and 6 are the Madhya Pradesh Housing & Environment Development Board (in short: “Housing Board”) and its officers. The Housing Board is constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Graha Nirman Mandal and Adhosanrachana Vikas Mandal Adhiniyam , 1972 (in short “Adhiniyam 1972”) and its officers are appointed under Sections 13 and 14 of Adhiniyam 1972. All the respondents are, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3.3. The Executive Engineer, of the “Housing Board”, Indore by letter dated 21.02.2011 proposed to the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board, Indore for the acquisition of about 100 Acres of land for development of “a Residential Scheme” based on Indore Development Authority's pattern of sharing developed plot area as per 50:50 ratio between land owners and Housing Board. The Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board by his letter dated 01.06.2011 requested the Land Acquisition Officer, Housing Board, Head Office, Bhopal to seek approval from the Board of Directors of the Housing Board for the acquisition of land u/s 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (in short L.A Act) and thereafter enter into negotiations with the land owners for sharing 50% developed plot area each in lieu of compensation. Initially, the lands of the petitioner were not included in the proposed total of 112.62 hectares proposed to be acquired by the Housing Board.

3.4. That, by letter dated 5/7/2011 the Land Acquisition Officer, Housing Board, Bhopal directed the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board, Indore that acquisition of 112.62 hectares of land situated at village Palakhedi, subject to the conditions.

3.5. That by letter dated 12/7/2011 the Executive Engineer, Housing Board, Indore submitted a tentative plan to develop housing scheme in 112.62 hectares of land situated at village Palakhedi in anticipation of the permissions of the Board of Directors of the Housing Board. The EE made a request for acquisition of the land to the Collector, Indore as per oral instructions given by the Deputy Commissioner, Housing Board, Indore to him on 11.07.2011 land o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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