Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 41195
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
Roopnarayan Patel – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 30059/2023
Ajay Mishra,Advocate General
Land acquired for public purpose cannot be repurposed for private use without due process; failure to comply with statutory requirements renders acquisition void.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5-A, 17(4), and 16 - Challenge to illegal tender issued for construction on acquired land - Petitioners, as legal heirs, contested the diversion of land use from public purpose to commercial development, asserting the acquisition had lapsed - Court found the acquisition void ab initio due to change in purpose and lack of urgency in invoking Section 17(4). (Paras 1-46)
(B) Public Purpose - The court emphasized that land acquired for a public purpose cannot be repurposed for private use without due process and justification. (Paras 28-29)
(C) Right to Property - The court reiterated the constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of property under Article 300A, emphasizing the necessity of following due process in land acquisition. (Paras 39-44)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, heirs of landowners, challenged the tender issued by the Housing Board for land acquired in 1997 for an old age home, which was later diverted for commercial use. The acquisition was declared lapsed in 2005, and subsequent attempts to construct were deemed illegal.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the acquisition proceedings and the tender, directing the return of land to the petitioners and mutation of their names in the revenue records.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the tender, the change of purpose of acquisition, and the legality of the construction initiated by the Housing Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the change in purpose from public to private use rendered the acquisition void, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory requirements and the protection of property rights.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the acquisition and tender.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. The present petition has been filed challenging the illegal tender(Annexure P-9) issued by the Housing Board for construction of houses, building etc and construction raised by respondent no. 7 on the basis of tender issued by Madhya Pradesh Housing Board.
Chequered History
2. Petitioners are agriculturists and owners of land bearing Survey No. 38/min-1 admeasuring 0.844 hectare , 38/min-2 admeasuring 2.144 hectare and 42/4 admeasuring area 0.105 i.e. a total admeasuring area 3.093 hectare of land situated at Village Goyla Khurd, Teh. & Distt. Ujjain. The land in question was initially recorded in the name of Late Shri Omkar Lal and the present petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Shri Omkar Lal.
Land Acquisition
3. The said land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer proposed to acquire the private land of petitioners in the year 1997. The land in question was shown to be acquired for the scheme of M.P. Housing Board for construction of old age home at Ujjain.
4. The land Acquisition Officer has passed an order dated 15.04.2005 to the effect that the scheme for which the land in question was acquired was valid till 21.09.2003 and therefore, the same stood lapsed. The Commissioner, Ujjain has issued letter dated 03.10.2005 verifying the said fact that the scheme was lapsed and if the land is required, then fresh proposal be passed. Thereafter, the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer has again passed an order on 31.10.2006 to review the aforesaid order. However, no compensation for the aforesaid Land Acquisition was ever received by the petitioners.
Litigation
5. Petitioners have filed W.P. No. 2032/2001 challenging the validity of notification issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [referred to as 'the Act of 1894' hereinafter] which was dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2004. Against the said order, L.P.A. No. 409/2004 was filed which also stood dismissed vide order dated 23.11.2004. Thereafter, SLP No. 26275/2004 was filed which stood dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2005.
6. Thereafter against these, various proceedings were initiated and ultimately an application was preferred before the respondent no.1 on 25.07.2014 for exonerating the land of petitioners from acquisition as the new Land Acquisition Act came into force. The Revenue Department accepted the application and issued letter dated 06.12.2014 directing to mutate the name of petitioners in the revenue records. Pursuant to the said letter, directions were sought by the Collector, Ujjain and an order dated 24.06.2016 was passed cancelling the order by which the land was exonerated.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 24.06.2016, petitioners filed W.P. No. 7479/2016 which is pending.
8. The Housing Board [referred to as 'the Board'] has issued tender in the month of August and September, 2023 for the project 'Shivangi Parisar' for construction of commercial building and houses. The tender was allotted to respondent no.7. Petitioners thereafter approached the State Government who has passed the order datd 11.10.2023 wherein land of petitioners was exonerated and declared free from acquisition and it was directed to the Collector to mutate the name of petitioners in the revenue records. Pursuant to the said order of State Government, petitioners have approached the revenue department for mutation of their names in the revenue records, but the revenue authorities are not mutating the name of petitioners. The Board after getting knowledge of said letter in connivance with the contractor has started the construction work day in and day out in haste. Faced with the said situation, petitioners approached the State Government for restraining the respondents from raising construction. Taking note of the situation, the Collector issued direction vide letter dated 24.11.2023. Petitioners have also submitted representations alongwith all orders to the Board requesting for restraining the resp
