IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN WRIT APPEAL No. 776 of 2024 K.J.S. CEMENT LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 706 of 2023 KJS CEMENT LIMITED Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 707 of 2023 KJS CEMENT LIMITED Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 710 of 2023 KJS CEMENT LIMITED Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 711 of 2023 KJS CEMENT LIMITED Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS WRIT APPEAL No. 716 of 2023 KJS CEMENT LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER WRIT APPEAL No. 778 of 2024 K.J.S CEMENT LIMITED Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Brian Da’Silva - Sr. Advocate with Shri Vishwa Mohan Bhardwaj - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Anubhav Jain – Government Advocate for the respondents /

State.

Shri Shrikrishna Sharma - Advocate for the Indian Railways.

Shri Anirudh Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No. 5 &

6 in WA No. 707/2023.

Shri Sanjay Sanyal - Advocate for the respondent No.4 in WA No.776/024, respondents No. 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19 in WA No. 706/2023, respondent No. 5 in WA No.710/2023, respondents No.5 & 6 in WA No.711/2023 and respondents No. 4 to 9 in WA No. 716/2023.

Reserved on - 24.04.2025 Pronounced on - 14.05.2025 ORDER Per: Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice

1. In all these writ appeals, a common question of fact and law is involved and therefore, they are heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts and relevant material on record are taken into consideration from W.A.No.776/2024.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER

2. The present Writ Appeal under 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in in Writ Petition No.20386/2013 whereby the Award dated 14.06.2013 passed in Revenue Case No. 6A-82/2012-13 has been quashed.

3. The present Appeal pertains to Land bearing Khasra no. 65/2, 65/4, area of 0.3 hectares each, situated at Village Gram Lakwar, Tehsil: Maihar, District:Satna (MP) (henceforth referred to as the ‘land in question’).

4. Respondents number 4 to 6, who are the owners of the land in question, filed the aforesaid Writ Petition before the learned Single Bench challenging the award dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/ Land Acquisition Officer Maihar on the ground that Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was without jurisdiction as under section 44 (b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land could be acquired by the private companies only for limited purpose. The respondent number 4 to 6 further submitted before the learned Single Bench that under Section 40 (1) (a) lays down that purpose of the acquisition is to obtain land for erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the company or for amenities directly connected therewith. Due to bar under Section 44(b), the Land Acquisition Officer does not have any jurisdiction to pass order for acquisition of their land.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government submitted that the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was duly followed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHRISTOPHER

6. The learned Single Bench of this Court, after hearing both the parties observed that the Counsel appearing for the State could not point out compliance of Section 40 (1) (a) and save the action of acquisition under Section 44 b of the Land Acquisition Act.

7. The learned Single Bench also observed that since the Award was passed on 14.06.2013 and the Act of 2013 was made on 27.09.2013, therefore, the procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be followed. The learned Single Bench noted the various provisions of the Land