IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 5 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3984 of 2021 HARILAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yash Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3/State.

Ms. Sudipta Choubey - Advocate for respondent No.4.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

a. To declare the Order dated 23.11.2019 passed by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/2) as being violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and set aside the same;

b. To direct the Respondents to expedite the process of grant of compensation awarded to the Petitioner by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure P/1);

c. Any other relief that may be deem fit.

d. Cost may be awarded.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a resident of District Betul (MP) and he had a land bearing Khasra No.275 situated at Village Borgaon. The said land was acquired under the Madhyam Udvahan Sinchai Pariyojana as a submerged area. The proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') were conducted by respondent No.2 bearing No.Ra.Ma.Ka./92/A-82/2017-18 and vide order dated 01.09.2018, respondent No.2 awarded a compensation of Rs.23,30,182/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, a relative of the petitioner, namely, Sakun i.e. respondent No.4 preferred an objection before respondent No.3 alleging that she too has a share in the property in respect of which the compensation was granted by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. Such proceedings before respondent No.3 took place in the year 2019 and despite appearing before respondent No.3, petitioner was not communicated the order passed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 vide its order dated 23.11.2019 interfered with the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 and reduced the quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioner.

3. It is argued that despite having an Award of compensation in his favour, petitioner is not able to enjoy and fructify the same. He is running from pillar to post but there seems to be no respite for him, therefore he has preferred this petition seeking quashment of order impugned dated 23/11/2019 passed by respondent No.3 and also for grant of compensation awarded to the petitioner by respondent No.2.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the order impugned. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that in case if the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 23/11/2019 passed by respondent No.3, then he is having remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 of filing an application before the Collector for reference to the Authority. Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6 . From the perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23/11/2019 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Betul / respondent No.3, whereby respondent No.3 has reduced the quantum of compensation granted to the petitioner by respondent No.2 by Award dated 01/09/2018. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner is having remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 of filing a Reference before the Collector against the order dated 23/11/2019 passed by respondent No.3.

7. Section 64 of the Act of 2013 is relevant and the same reads as under:-

"64. Reference to Authority.– (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to