Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 14427
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
Omprakash – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WA 769/2006
Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Rajeev Kumar Jain, Ms Archana Kher – Addnl. Advocate General, Shri Kushagra Singh
The invocation of the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act was found arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating the right to be heard and property rights.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, and 17(1) - Writ appeal challenging land acquisition notifications - Appellants claimed violation of mandatory provisions and lack of urgency - Court found gross illegality in invoking urgency clause, depriving appellants of their right to be heard - Notifications quashed. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 25)
(B) Right to Property - Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Deprivation of property rights without due process is unconstitutional - Court emphasized the necessity of following statutory procedures in land acquisition. (Paras 8, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged notifications for acquiring their agricultural land for industrial development, claiming violations of the Land Acquisition Act and their rights to property and livelihood. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the urgency clause was invoked without proper justification, violating the appellants' rights under the Land Acquisition Act and the Constitution. (Paras 25)
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the justification for invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1). (Paras 4, 25)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the invocation of the urgency clause was arbitrary and unreasonable, resulting in a violation of the appellants' rights to be heard and to property. (Paras 25)
Result: Appeals allowed and notifications quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. objections to land acquisition (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 2. invocation of urgency clause (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 3. appeals allowed and disposed (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid appeals, they are being heard analogously and decided by this singular order.
For the sake of convenience, facts of W.A. No.769 of 2006 are being taken for consideration.
The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya Khandpeeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005[earlier registered as Letter Patent Appeal No.181 of 1996 ] has been filed assailing the judgment dated 04.10.1996 passed in W.P. No. 1824/1994 by which the petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants herein have filed writ petition challenging the notification issued by the respondent/State under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(referred to as the Act of 1894' hereinafter) with regarding to acquisition of land belonging to the appellants situated at village Sonvaya Tehsil Mhow Distt. Indore. They were holding the bhoomi swami rights of the said land and were earning their livelihood by cultivating the said land.
3. Respondent/State started proceedings for acquisition of agricultural land of village Sonvaya ( including parcels of land belonging to appellants in W.A. No. 769/2006)of total area of 29.970 hectares and also the parcels of land(belonging to appellants in W.A. No. 762/2006) of Village Baislaya admeasuring total area of 33.009 hectares under the Act of 1894. Notification u/S 4 of the Act of 1894 was duly published in the gazzette dated 28.10.1994 followed by another notification u/S 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 04.11.1994. Thereafter, notices were issued to the appellants. u/S 9 of the Act of 1894. Appellants are still in possession of the land. The parcels of land in question was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer on 11.10.1994 on the request made by respondent no. 5 i.e. the Madhya Pradesh AKVN for the purpose of establishing an industrial area wherein the respondent no. 5 had made request for invoking the urgency clause u/S 17(1) of the Act of 1894. After receiving the proposal by respondent no.5, the LAO forwarded it to the Collector for approving the same and thereafter referring the same to the Commissioner, Indore Division seeking his approval for the use of Urgency clause u/S 17(1) of the Act of 1894 in view of the fact that the total area of land to be acquired exceeded 100 acres. After receiving approval from the Commissioner, the Land Acquisition Officer prepared draft notification u/S 4 and 17(1) of the Act of 1894 and submitted the same to the Collector and thereafter the same were issued and published in the gazzette mentioning the purpose of establishment of an industrial area and it is also mentioned that provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply since in the opinion of State Government, the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were applicable to the lands proposed to be acquired.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants while arguing has put forth the following objections:
(i) Utter violation of mandatory provisions: There is nothing found on record to show that any steps whatsoever were taken at any point of time to comply with the mandatory requirement of law .
(ii) Notification u/S 4 & 6 and notice u/S 9 are non-est - Sustenance of notification under Section 4 of the Act itself is doubtful as it was not at all published in any manner at any convenient place in the locality. Non-compliance of the above mandatory provisions of law stands further established by inquiries made in this connection by the appellants from Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and Station House Officer of the near police station, Kishanganj. Such utter non- comp
