‘Officials Encouraging Financial Loss to State’: MP High Court Dismisses Appeal Citing Inordinate Delay and Unsatisfactory Explanation - 2025-09-29

MP High Court Slams State Officials for 'Encouraging Financial Loss', Dismisses Land Acquisition Appeal Over Inordinate Delay

Gwalior, MP – The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in a scathing order, dismissed a first appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, citing an inordinate and unexplained delay. Justice G. S. Ahluwalia remarked that the conduct of top officials suggests they are "out and out to encourage the authorities to act contrary to the interest of the State, so that the State may suffer financial losses."

The appeal, filed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, challenged an enhanced compensation award by the 5th District Judge, Gwalior. However, the court primarily focused on the State's application for condonation of delay, which it found to be "completely unsatisfactory."

Background of the Case

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against an award dated May 25, 2022, which had increased the compensation for landowners Balkishan and others. The appeal itself was filed significantly late, prompting the court to scrutinize the reasons provided for the delay.

The court's decision heavily relied on a similar case, The State of M.P. and others Vs. Mahendra and others , where it had previously expressed shock at the lethargy of state officials.

Court's Strong Rebuke on Bureaucratic Lethargy

Justice Ahluwalia highlighted the "shocking" timeline of the State's actions in the related Mahendra case: - Award Date: July 26, 2022 - Permission to Appeal Granted: August 13, 2023 (almost a year later) - Application for Certified Copy: July 8, 2024 (11 months after getting permission) - Appeal Filed: June 18, 2025 (another 11 months after receiving the certified copy)

The court observed that the Executive Engineer, Harsi High Level Canal, seemed determined "to ensure that appeal is not filed within the period of limitation."

In response to a court directive, Dr. Rajesh Rajora, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Water Resources Department, filed an affidavit stating that show-cause notices had been issued to three officiating Executive Engineers found prima facie responsible for the delay.

However, the court found this action to be a "mere formality."

"The affidavit, which has been filed, is indicative of fact that the State authorities are still not ready to improve their ways and manners of dealing with the Court cases. Mere a formality of issuing show-cause notices has been adopted with no final conclusion. It appears that the State authorities are still waiting for this case to be finally adjudicated, so that they can give a clean-chit or can keep the show-cause notices in cold storage."

The court further noted that the affidavit was silent on the larger issue of "encouraging such type of practice," leading it to conclude that top officials were complicit in conduct detrimental to the state's financial interests.

Decision on Merits Also Favors Landowners

While the appeal was primarily dismissed on the grounds of delay, the court also noted that it lacked substance on the merits. Citing its own precedent in The State of M.P. and others Vs. Chhakkilal and others , the court affirmed that: 1. A land acquisition reference cannot be dismissed as time-barred if the landowner was not properly served notice of the award. The limitation period runs from the date of knowledge, not the date of the award itself. 2. Accepting compensation "under protest" does not bar a landowner from seeking enhancement through a reference. 3. Collector’s guideline rates can be a relevant piece of evidence for determining market value in the absence of a challenge to their validity by the State.

Final Order

Finding no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and observing a failure to take corrective measures against the "lethargic attitude of the senior officers," the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.

The judgment serves as a stern warning to government departments against procedural laxity and emphasizes that the courts will not entertain appeals filed with such gross and unexplained delays, especially when it prejudices the state exchequer.