AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
1/ Present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :
a)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing the letters (Annexure P/9 & P/10) and the order of the Respondent No.2 directing the Respondent No.3 to take possession of the said land and also to direct the respondents not to interfere or to dispossess the petitioners from the said land. This writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs
b)Any other relief which may be deemed just and proper be also granted.
2/ The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioners are the owners of lands bearing survey Nos. 416/4/Min-1, 416/4/Min-2, 416/4/Min-3, 416/4/Min-4, 416/5, 416/7, 416/8, 417/2, 417/3 & 417/4 area 3.176 hectares of Village- Niranjanpur, Tehsil & District Indore (hereinafter referred to as the said land). The land in question was initially owned and possessed by Shri Pratap Singh & Smt. Rani Kusum Kumari. The said land was included in the Scheme No. 114(Part-II) of the Respondent No.4. Though the said land was sought to be acquired under the Act and notification & declaration were issued and an award was passed, but the same was challenged by filing a writ petition. During the pendency of the said writ petition, an agreement was executed between the parties and the said land was left from the Scheme and the owners were permitted for private development in accordance with the Scheme. The Respondent No. 4 pursuant to the said agreement left the process of acquiring the said land and declared that it does not want to acquire the said land and had never deposited any compensation and had never requested to get the possession of the said land. The ownership of the said land was changed due to transfers and the names of the transferees were duly mutated in the revenue record within the knowledge of the Respondents. The petitioners had applied for development permission from the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning, Indore. The said permission was neither granted, nor was refused, hence a writ petition was filed before this Hon’ble Court, which was decided with a direction to decide the case of permission within 60 days otherwise the permission shall be deemed to be granted. The said order was not complied with, hence a contempt petition was filed. The petitioners applied for development permission from the Municipal Corporation, Indore and when the same was not granted, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which is also pending. The officers of the Respondent No.4 with ulterior motive and without authority of law are raising unwarranted/unnecessary and unauthorized objections in granting development permissions before the Joint Director, TNCP and the Municipal Corporation. In furtherance of their illegal, ulterior and wholly unauthorized motives, the Respondent No.4 knowing fully well that the said land is excluded from the Scheme and land acquisition is abandoned and the possession of the said land cannot be taken wrote letter to the Collector, Indore seeking y) to grant possession of the land pursuant to the award passed in the year 1992 and admitting therein that the no compensation was ever deposited. After lapse of more than 23 years, it was stated that Respondent No. 4 is now willing to deposit the compensation. Surprisingly the Collector through the Respondent No.2 appears to have initiated some proceedings and without adhering to and in total disregard to the provisions of law and contrary to numberof decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also of this Hon’ble court and without serving any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who are admittedly the owners andare in possession of the said land, has passed an order directing the Respondent No.4 to take possession of the land. The petitioners could know about the said order only from the news items published in daily newspapers. The petitioners tried to know about the said order in the office of the Collector butthe file is not traceable. The petitioners seek direction of this Hon’ble Court to the Respondents to filed the copy of the said order or crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to file the same as and when the same is obtained. Since there is an imminent danger of dispossession, hence this petition is filed.
3/ Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned action of the Respondents is wholly illegal, unauthorized, arbitrary and is without jurisdiction and is unconstitutional. He has further submitted that the said land was excluded from the Scheme and the acquisition of the said land was specifically abandoned, hence after lapse of 22/23 years, it was not competent for the Respondent No. 4 to allege that the said land is the part of the Scheme and was actually acquired. Nor could the Respondent No.4 requested or insisted the Respondent No. | & 2 to take possession of the said land. Respondent No.4 having taken consistent stand for a period of more 22 years that the said land is not a part of the Scheme and having refused to deposit the compensation and also to take possession could not have turn around and insisted for taking possession of the said land. It is submitted that whether there was any violation of the agreement or what action is legally possible, is not the subject matter of this petition, but the question is whether the RespondentNo. 4 could have requested or insisted Respondent No. 1 & 2 to take possession of the said land and whether Respondent No. 1 & 2 could have proceeded to take possession. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparancy in Land Acquisition Resettlement and Reconstructions Act, 2013 [ in short “ the New Act, 2013] and in view of the admitted factual position that for a period of 5 years after passing the award u/s 11 of the Act, neither the compensation was either paid or was deposited, nor was the possession was taken, the land acquisition proceedings and the award has lapsed and the possession of the said land cannot be taken. This position of law is repeatedly laid down andclarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in number of decisions such as (2014)3 SCC-183, (2014)6 SCC-564,583, 586, 2014(III)WN-64, (2015)3SCC- 541 & 597, (2015)3SCC-206, (2015)4 SCC-325 & 347. It is further submitted that the illegality, arbitrariness and utter disregard to law and the binding precedents are apparent from the fact that the Respondents having positive knowledge and also clear notice in this regard have chosen ignore the same with wholly illegal and ulterior intentions just to harass the petitioners and to deprive of the petitioners of their legal and constitutional rights and the property. The Respondents have utterly violated and circumvented the legal provisions and the binding precedents and have acted in the manneras if they are above the law and are immune therefrom. It is further submitted that the action of the Respondents apart from being wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and authority and unconstitutional, is also utterly violative of the principles of natural justice whereby no notice or hearing was provided to the petitioners. This is done when the petitioners had already served a legal notice upon the Respondents. Without prejudice the above, it is submitted that even under the Act, the possession of the land could not have taken unless the compensationis paid or is offered and notice of possession is given. Even under the Act the possession could not have been taken after lapse of 22/23 years. It is also submitted that in view of the provisions of section 24(2) of the the New Act, 2013 and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court, the possession of the land of which the land acquisition proceedings are lapsed, cannot be taken, He has further submitted taht in view of the above clear position of law, evenif it is presumed that the said land still a part of the Scheme which is otherwise lapsed with. regard to said land under the provisions of Adhiniyam or because of alleged violation of any condition, the Respondents are required to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings and are required to pay compensation according to the the New Act, 2013. In any case the possession of the land cannot be taken without payment of compensation according to the New Act, 2013. Thus the action of the Respondents is not only illegal but is an attempt to frustrate the legal provisions and same is violative of the legal, constitutional and fundamental rights of the petitioners. In such circumstances, present petition be allowed.
4/ In reply, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 / State has opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioners has filed the present petition by challenging the impugned communication dated 17/04/2015 [Annexure P/9 & P/10]. It is further submitted that in the present petition, the Indore Development Authority, who has framed the scheme No.114 Part-II, has already filed a detailed reply. The reply filed on behalf of I.D.A. covers the basic controversy raised by the petitioners. It is further submitted that although no relief has been claimed by the petitioners, however, the facts in respect of amendment of the New Act, 2013, which came into force from 01/01/2014, and on that basis it is submitted that Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 the land acquisition proceedings and award has lapsed and the possession of the land cannot be taken. In this regard, it is humbly submitted that initiation of the proceedings was started under the provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 by framing Scheme No. 114 Part-II of IDA in which the land in question is also situated. It is further submitted that in Section 56 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, an amendment has been made with effect from 11/01/2017 and a proviso has been added which is having retrospective effect. Under these circumstances, present petitoin deserves to be dismissed.
5/ In reply, learned counsel for the respnodent no. 4/ Indore Development Authority has opposed the present petition by submitting that the contention raised by the petitoner is entirely wrong and misconceived. It is further submitted that the petitioners is attempting to take advantage of his own wrong by first deliberately violating the Agreement dated 7.1.1993 and Ceiling exemption order dated 27.10.1995 and then claiming the application of Section 24(2) of the of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition Resettlement & Reconstructions Act, 2013, It is further submitted that after the deliberate breach of Agreement dated 7.1.1993 by the petitioners, the steps for completing the acquisition could not be completed immediately on account of interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court from time to time in various proceedings. After the breach of Agreement dated 7.1.1993, the steps taken by the respondent/ IDA to complete the remaining steps of acquisition are entirely legal and valid. By contending that the acquisition has lapsed, the petitioners is attempting to take advantage of his own wrong and fraud played by him. The petitioners has further played fraud on the State Government. While seeking Ceiling exemption, the petitioners had represented that he would use the subject land for Drive-in Cinema, which he never made. However, he admittedly violated the condition of Ceiling exemption. He further violated the condition that the ownership of the subject land shall not be transferred. However, admittedly, the transfer of ownership has taken place. The petitioners has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and does not deserve any indulgence from this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the ownership of petitioners in subject land is in violation of the Ceiling exemption order passed by the State Government. It is further submitted that the petitioners has failed to disclose the conditions of the Agreement dated 7.1.1993 as also the fact that he violated the terms and conditions of the said Agreement. It is further submitted that the petitioners had violated the conditions for private development and has played fraud on the respondent/ IDA. The Joint Director, TNCP rightly did not grant permission as the petitioners had violated the terms of the conditions that permitted him the use for private development. The proceedings initiated by the petitioners are a matter of record. It is submitted that Annexure P-9 and P-10 warrants no interference from this Hon'ble Court. Since the petitioners played fraud on the respondent / IDA and had no intentions to comply with the conditions of allowing private development; the respondent/ IDA is fully justified to complete the steps of acquisition. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply where a party has played fraud. In any case, in the facts of the present case, on account of interim orders, Section 24(2) has no application. It is further submitted that the legal notice issued by the petitioners is misconceived. The respondent no. 4 is entitled to complete the proceedings with regard to petitioners's land/subject land. It is also submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary or illegal. On the contrary, it is the petitioners which has played fraud on respondent/ IDA and approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. It is further submitted that the acquisition was abandoned. The acquisition was only kept in abeyance till the petitioners comply with Agreement dated 7.1.1993. The petitioners never intended to perform the same. Undisputedly, the said Agreement was never performed. Thus, the respondent/ IDA was and is entitled to complete the acquisition. The subject land is part of the Scheme and private development was allowed conditionally. Since the conditions were violated, the permission for private development stood deemed to be withdrawn and the respondent no. 4 was and is entitled to complete the acquisition. The provision of Section 24(2) does not apply in the facts of present case. It is further submitted that there is no disregard to any binding precedents. The respondent/ IDA has circumvented any provisions or law. On the contrary the petitioners has played fraud and approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. It is further submitted that the plea of natural justice is baseless and denied. It is submitted that the respondent/ IDA could not earlier take possession as interim order(s) were operating from time to time. It is reiterated that Section 24(2) of the 2103 Act has no application in present case. It is very convenient to the petitioners to contend that it may have violated the Agreement dated 7.1.1993, however the respondent/ IDA should initiate fresh acquisition. The petitioners cannot take advantage of his own wrong and deserves no indulgence from this Hon'ble Court. The 2013 Act does not apply in the present case. The respondent/ IDA is entitled to complete the acquisition as per the 1894 Act. The present Writ Petition is not maintainable and entirely misconceived. The petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6/ Counsel for the IDA has relied upon the judgment in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow through its Chairman and others Vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow reported in 1996(3) SCC page 124, of which, relevant Para 3 is reproduced as under :
3.The learned Attorney General for the appellants contended that after the judgment, it has come to light that in respect of the self-same lands, the market value as per the guidelines issued by the Government was determined for stamp duty at Rs. 80/- per square yard in Ziamou area and the respondent himself had purchased the land for Rs. 60,000/- in 1989. The determination of the compensation by the Collector @ Rs. 200/- per square foot is an obvious error apparent on the face of the record and the directions issued by the Division Bench are vitiated by manifest error of law. Shri Gopal Subramanyam, the learned senior counsel, who has sought for and granted 15 adjournments on the ground that matter is being settled, has informed the Court that the settlement has not been reached and it is under process. He has sought further extension of time. Since the case has been adjourned several times, we are not inclined to adjourn the case. In his usual fairness, he has stated that he does not stand on technicalities. The respondent has purchased the land in question. The acquisition covered about 10,000 square feet in addition, the respondent had purchased another 5,000/- square feet which was also taken possession of by the respondent under the notification but the same does not from part of the acquisition. He contended that since possession was taken before declaration under Section 6 was published, it was not validly taken. Admittedly, the award was not made even after two years of the coming into force of the Amendment Act. Therefore, the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 shall stand lapsed by operation of Section 11A of the Act. Thereby, the respondent is entitled to the compensation on the basis of prevailing market value. The District Collector had assessed the market value at Rs.200/- per square foot and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the Division bench in directing payment of the compensation @ Rs. 200/- per square foot and also the consequential solatium and interest. Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High Court. It is settled law that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property. In this case, notification under Section 4[1] was published on March 24, 1973, possession of the land admittedly was taken on July 5, 1973 and pumping station house was constructed. No doubt, declaration under Section 6 was published later on July 8, 1973. Admittedly power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of the notice under Section 9 possession was taken, since urgency was acute, viz., pumping station house was to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17 [2] free from all encumbrances. It is further settled law that once possession is taken, by operation of Section 17(2), the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) is published in the Gazette withdrawing from the acquisition. Section 11A, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, therefore, does not apply and the acquisition does not lapse. The notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6, therefore, remain valid. There is no other provision under the Act to have the acquired land divested, unless, as stated earlier, notification under Section 48(1) was published and the possession are surrendered pursuant thereto. That apart, since M/s. Kalra Properties, respondent had purchased the land after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, its sale is void against the State and it acquired no right, title or interest in the land. Consequently, it is settled law that it cannot challenge the validity of the notification or the regularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6 was published
The judgment delivered in the case of Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil Jain reported in AIR 2023 SC 20 of which relevant para 2 to 2.3 are reproduced as under :
2.Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and para 5, it appears that the original writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question they do not derive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it was the specific case that the original petitioners had no locus to file the writ petition and seek any relief with respect to the acquisition. From the counter filed before the High Court it appears that it was also the case on behalf of the appellant and so stated in the counter affidavit that the possession of the land in question could not be taken over due to the pending litigation which ended upto this Court upholding the acquisition proceedings. However, thereafter and despite the above and without even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1Now so far as the locus of the original writ petitioners being subsequent purchasers is concerned, the said issue is now not res integra in view of the decision of the three Judge Bench of this Court is the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 which has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 2282) and Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022 (AIR 2022 SC 2282). In the aforesaid decisions this Court has specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. In that view of the matter the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners subsequent purchasers and declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
2.2Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possession could not be taken over due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the period during the stay is to be excluded. If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse.
2.3Even the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court, has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:
366.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1.Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 112014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2.In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3.The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4.The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of nondeposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Nondeposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5.In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6.The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7.The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8.The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 112014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
366.9.Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 112014. It does not revive stale and time barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
Learned counsel prays to dismiss the petition filed by the subsequent purchasers. The learned AAG appearing for the State has also supported the submission made by the IDA and has submitted that petition is meritless and required to be dismissed.
7/ I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. It is relevant to refer to the synopsis filed by the petitioners as well as the respondent / IDA, whereby the chronology of events are mentioned, which read as under :
Synopsis filed by the petitioners:
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| petitioners are the owners, being a recorded Bhumi Swamis, in possession of the subject lands as per the chart and relevant revenue records. | |
| 19.12.1983 | A no objection certificate for establishing a drive-in-cinema was granted by the licensing authority under MP Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1972. |
| 6.8.1984 | Under Section 50(1) of MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “Adhiniyam”) the IDA declared its intention to frame scheme No. 114-I and II. |
| 5.10.1984 | Under section 50(2) of the Adhiniyam, the intention was published and thereafter scheme was finalized under section 50(7). |
| 3.4.1987 | Final scheme No. 114-II was published in the gazette including the land of present petitioners. |
| 3.11.1989 | A notification u/s 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was published invoking urgency clause. |
| 9.11.1990 | A declaration u/s 6 of the LA Act was published declaring that lands included therein are required for public purpose. |
23.4.1991 MP 747/1991 was filed by one Manohar Dev (predecessor in interest of the petitioners)
25.4.1991 An interim order was passed restraining the IDA and the State from dispossession the petitioners.
27/11/92 An award was framed by the LAO including the subject lands.
28/11/92 A representation was submitted by Manohar Dev regarding release of subject lands from Scheme 114-II.
30/11/92 Under statutory regulation of 1997, the IDA passed a resolution No. 221 permitting private development. Conditional upon the sanction layout of scheme No. 114-II and shall deposit external development charges at the rate of Rs. 5/- and Rs. 1,00,000 as advance payment.
06/01/93 Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited by the predecessor of the petitioners in the IDA.
07/01/93 An agreement was entered into between the predecessor of the petitioners and the IDA requiring the deposit of Rs. 1,98,570/- for external development charges at the rate of Rs. 5/- and the land shall be used for drive—in-cinema subject to sanction layout of scheme No. 114-II within two years.
25/06/94 MP No. 747/1991 was withdrawn by the predecessor of the petitioners.
07/11/94 Information was given to the IDA regarding withdrawal of the petition
06/10/95 WP No. 1280/1995 was filed by one Kasim Ali challenging the grant of permission for drive-in-cinema and an order to maintain status quo regarding the development of subject land
27/10/95 The state government granted exemption u/s 20 of the ULC Act 1976.
13/02/98 IN WP no. 1280/1995 was disposed off by this Hon’ble court directing the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to consider the representation of Kasim Ali and pass an order.
24/04/98 In furtherance of resolution No. 221 dated 30.11.1992 the predecessor of petitioners applied for sanction of layout to Jt. Director T& CP but as per the prescription of the master plan marking the subject land for residential use, the application was rejected.
29/09/98 As directed in WP no. 1280/1995, the Principal Secretary rejected the representation of the Kaim Ali and further observed that although on 15.3.1990 the IDA has sent a letter to Jt. Director proposing a drive-in-cinema alongwith six copy of map and other document. But the said documents are not available in the file of Jt. Director. Ultimately, IDA was directed to initiate action for modification of sanction layout for the scheme No. 114-II from the T& CP.
25/02/00 IDA filed reply in WP NO. 1859/1998 wherein in para 4 and 5 it was candidly admitted that although award was passed on 27.11.1992 for the subject lands, but the possession has not been obtained rather the land was permitted to be released for private development, therefore, the subject land do not rest in the IDA.
29/02/00 In WP No. 1859/1998 (PIL) Narendra Vs. Competent Authority an interim order against development was passed.
29/07/00 The IDA submitted a letter to the Jt Director alongwith a map, clearly admitting in para 2.3(ka) and stated that it had removed the subject lands from the scheme. Note: In this map it is clearly mentioned that subject land has been exclused from the scheme 114-II.
28/08/03 IDA wrote a letter to the LAO mentioning that for scheme No. 114-II possession of 13.938 hectare has been given alongwith the details which does not include the subject land and compensation of Rs. 41,62,916/- was deposited with the LOA.
29/10/07 The State Government wrote a letter to the Collector Bhopal clarifying that since the ULC Act, 1976 has been repealed w.e.f. 17.2.2000, the breach of any exemption condition sanctioned u/s 25 shall not have effect after repeal of Act.
05/01/10 WP No. 1859/1998 was finally dismissed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble court observing that subject lands where never taken possession by IDA
05/09/11 A letter was sent by IDA to the petitioners clarifying and admitting that the subject lands were released according to resolution no. 221 dated 30.11.1992
03/10/11 The petitioners submitted an application under Section 30 of the Adhiniyam for sanction of layout as per Master Plan 2021.
24/10/13 Since no action was taken by the Jt. Director, WP No. 1276/2013 was filed by the petitioners and his court directed the Jt. Director to decide the same within two months, failing to which deemed approval would accrue in favour of petitioners u/s 30(5).
28/10/13 This order was communicated to Jt. Director.
22/03/14 The IDA informed the Jt. Director that it has not ratified the resolution No. 221 dated 30.11.1992 in its board meeting, hence it is cancelled.
19/09/14 A letter was sent by IDA to the state government for cancelling the exemption under ULC and the letter was sent to Collector for obtaining possession of the subject land.
24/12/14 The Jt.Director Indore rejected the layout sanction application of the petitioners.
23/03/15 The IDA wrote a letter to the Collector to take possession of the subject land.
20/04/15 A notice was sent by the petitioners to the respondent demanding justice
27/01/16 In WP No. 8176/2014 the present petitioners challenged the orders of the Municipal Corporation whereby the development permission was granted to petitioners was cancelled. This Hon’ble court allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioners have deemed sanction layout in Section 30(5) as on so deemed diversion and it was further observed that the land of the petitioners were excluded from scheme.
21/03/18 The municipal Corporation granted development permission to the petitioners. Note: based on this development permission the petitioners has completed the internal development of the subject land.
03/03/25 The development permission of the petitioners was cancelled by the Municipal Corporation which is presently under challenged in appeal.
Synopsis filed by the respondent /IDA:
| 5.10.1984 | Notification under Section 50(2) thereby declaring intention to prepare scheme no. 114 Part II for 57.351 hectare land of Niranjanpur & 20.655 hectare land of Pipliyakumar. |
| 5.2.1987 | Notification under Section 50(7) issued thereby finalizing scheme in respect of land situated at village Niranjanpur Pipliyakumar, wherein the land held by the predecessor in title was part of scheme. Kunwarpratap Singh Rani Kusum S/o Rana Kesarsingh Rajkunwarbai D/o Rana Kesarsingh Survey No. Area Survey No. Area |
416/5 0.866 416/4 1.117 417/2 0.793 417/3 0.547
10.5.1991 Interim order in MP No. 747/1991 filed by the power of attorney holder Manohardev, directing as under:- Stay copy to IDA & LAO
“In the meanwhile petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question.”
27.11.1992 Award passed during pendency of MP No. 747/1991 wherein land acquisition officer concluded that award shall be payable after disposal of Misc. Petition.
28.11.1992 Manohar Dev. Proposal for self-development permission for drive in cinema on no profit no loss basis.
30.11.1992 Resolution No. 221 decided to grant permission for self-development on the land survey No. 416/4, 416/5, 417/2, 417/3 total area 3.176 hectares on the condition that the development will be undertaken in accordance to the layout of the scheme No. 114 Part II, execution only when case withdrawn
9.12.1983 Permission of Collector thereby granting NOC for establishing the drive-in-cinema for 2 years only if drive-in-cinema not constructed in time, new application for NOC to be filed. Undertaking only for drive-in-cinema.
7.1.1993 Agreement between IDA and Manohar Dev thereby permitting Manohar Dev to undertake self development only for establishing drive-in-cinema to be undertaken in accordance to the sanction layout of the scheme No. 114 Part II. This development was to be completed within two years, failing which the authority will be empowered to reject the such permission and to undertake the land acquisition proceeding.
10.2.1993 Layout land for park, residential plot, 20 Mtr. Wide road of scheme no. 11 part II sanctioned.
25.6.1994 MP No. 747/1991 withdrawn. Stay continued in pendency of Misc. Petition.
22.8.1995 Lay amendment showing drive-in-cinema.
25.9.1995 WP No. 1280/1995 filed by one Kasim Ali.
6.10.1995 Status quo ordered to be maintained by the Hon’ble Court in WP No. 1280/1995 (PIL)
27.10.1995 The exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 granted on various conditions which included that the land shall not be transferable it shall only be used for the purpose of construction of drive-in-cinema to be started within one year and completed in three years in case of violation of any of the conditions, the exemption shall be cancelled and the land shall be vested in the state government.
13.2.1998 The Hon’ble court finally decided and disposed off the petition, directing the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to examine the representation till such decision status quo as it exists on the date of order shall be maintained by the parties.
24.4.1998 Private development not on lease.
29.9.1998 The State Government decided the representation with a direction that the authority should get the layout of drive-in-cinema also sanctioned as per the layout of the scheme no. 114 Part II, keeping in view that it does not create any nuisance to the residents of the adjacent colonies.
7.12.1998 WP (PIL) No. 1859/1998 filed by one person called Narendra Bahad.
29.2.2000 Interim order, status quo to be maintained by the parties.
12.5.2000 Stay in Narendra Bahal, thus excluding that land layout for rest be sanctioned.
10.1.2001 Layout sanction leaving this land as self development.
5.1.2010 Final order passed thereby dismissing the petition.
24.10.2013 WP No. 12761/2013 filed by petitioners disposed off with a direction to the petitioners to prefer an application for sanction of layout and the competent authority of the state government is to decide the said application in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, IDA not party to the petition.
22.3.2014 Vide letter No. 2202, the Chief Executive Officer did not grant NOC for layout by stating that the land is part of the scheme No. 114 Part II as land vested in State after award.
2.6.2014 Vide resolution No. 105, the self development permission granted to Manohar Dev was cancelled and this factum was informed to the Joint Director also that the land was part of the scheme NO. 114 Part II.
9.7.2014 Letter of the CEO, IDA to the Principal Secretary Revenue to cancel the exemption granted under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
19.9.2014 Letter of the CEO, IDA to the Collector to grant possession of the land in question pursuant to the award dated 27.11.1992 and cancel section 20 exemption.
10.11.2014 Writ petition 8176/2014 filed by petitioners against the state government and Municipal Corporation. IDA not a party to the petition.
19.11.2014 IDA letter for handing over of possession.
27.11.2014 IDA letter for handing over of possession.
24.12.2014 The Joint Director, Town & Country Planning rejected the application for grant of sanction of layout for residential cum commercial purposes as part of scheme
27.1.2015 IDA letter to Principal Secretary to cancel the exemption under section 20 of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
4.3.2015 IDA letter for handing over of possession.
4.3.2015, Letter to Principal Secretary to cancel the exemption under Section 20 7.3.2015, of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. 23.3.2015
17.4.2015 IDA letter to Collector for payment of compensation of Rs. 449089 to the land owner as compensation in respect of subject land.
7.5.2015 Letter to the Principal Secretary for cancelling the exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 and also to the collector for handing over the possession of subject land.
30.5.2015 Present WP No. 3479/15 filed.
1.6.2015 Hon’ble Court granted interim relief that petitioners shall not be dispossessed from land in question.
27.1.2016 WP NO. 8176/2014 disposed off directing the Municipal Corporation to pass fresh order and grant development permission without being influenced by the fact that the petitioners does not have diversion order and also does not have development permission from Town and Country Planning as no permission is required under Section 30(5) of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 read with order passed in WP No. 12761/2013.
21.3.2018 Municipal Corporation granted permission to construct, however no NOC called from IDA but various conditions though are mentioned in order.
3.3.2025 Permission cancelled.
LITIGATION & STAY
| Date | Event |
| 10.5.1991 R/5 (72) | Stay in MP No. 747/1991 shall not be dispossessed. |
| 27.11.1992 R/2 | Award passed during pendency of MP No. 747/91 Land Acquisition Officer concluded award shall be payable after disposal of Misc. Petition |
| 26.6.1994 R/10 | MP No. 747/1991 withdrawn |
| 25.9.1995 P/16(116) | WP No. 1280/1995 PIL by Kasim |
| 6.10.1995 P/16 | Status quo |
13.2.1998 Consent order disposed off. Principal Secretary to decide R/12 (286) representation status quo to continue till representation is decided. 29.9.1998 Representation decided under the hand and seal of Governor R/13 (294) 7.12.1998 WP No. 1859/98 PIL filed by Narendra Bahal R/14 29.2.2000 Status quo as on today to be maintained R/14 (297) 5.1.2010 Dismissed but the issue of vesting not an issue in lis, thus R/28 observations are to be read down. (408, 409) P/3 (68) 18.10.2013 WP No 12761/2013 filed. P/8(84) 24.10.2013 WP No. 12761/2013 disposed off direction to the State to decide R/17 (307) layout sanction application dated 3.10.2011 filed. 10.11.2014 WP No 8176/2014 IDA not party, observation made by Court not P/23 binding as no subject matter of lis
8/ From perusal of the above mentioned, it is undisputed fact that even considering the period of stay, which is existing proceeding, whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court have granted the stay. Excluding that period also, the total period i.e. 6 years, 8 months and 2 days have lapsed before the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 came into force and since the acquisition for the subject land has lapsed and in view of the above fact that the Award was passed on 27/11/1992, but till 25/06/1994, M.P. no. 747/1991 was pending and came to be withdrawn on 25/06/1994, the period from 27/11/192 to 26/06/1994 is excludable, however, the period from 26/06/1994 to 05/10/1995, 30/09/1998 to 28/02/2000 and from the period 06/10/2010 till 01/01/2014, total period of 6 years, 8 months and 2 days have lapsed and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioners that the endeavour of the respondents in proposing to take possession by impugned letters which are annexed as Annexure – P/9 and P/10 is prima-face is required to be considered as highly unwarranted, arbitrary illegal and also colorable exercise of power in nature .That contention is required to be accepted.. Consequently, the impugned letters dated 29/03/2015 [ Annexure-P/9] issued by the IDA to the Collector, Indore and the letter dated 17/04/2015 [ Annexure-P/10] issued by the C.E.O of the IDA to the Collector, Indore for taking possession of the disputed land, which is the subject matter of present petition and described in the petition, is required to be quashed.
9/ It is also coming from the record that by appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, which clearly indicate that the Scheme no. 114 Part-II has lapsed and an order is required to be passed by declaration that the Scheme no. 114 Part-II, so far as it relates to the subject land of the petitioners, which is described in para- 5.1 of the Writ Petition, has lapsed and consequently, the respondents require to be restrained from taking any action against the present petitioners pursuant to such lapse of acquisition as found in respect of Scheme no. 114 Part-II qua the land of the petitioners. It is relevant to note of the contention, which is raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, where the petitioners have relied upon the judgment delivered by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the observations made in para no. 366.8, which read as under :
“8.The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. “
10/ The contentions raised by the respondents are mainly on the basis that the subsequent purchaser cannot file writ petition by relying upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It also transpires that at the relevant point of time, various proceedings were going on before the Hon'ble High Court as well as the various Authorities and it also transpires that an agreement was executed between the IDA and predecessor in title Manohardev on 07/01/1993 wherein an undertaking by Manohardev regarding the self-development was given. The fact remains that the petitioners are the Bhumiswami and the predecessor in title Manohardev had pursued the various proceedings like M.P. no. 747/1991 etc and also made several representations to the various Authorities regarding the issues arising for the lands in question. It is also relevant to note that the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of WP no. 1859/1998 by observing that the possession of the subject lands were never taken by the IDA. It is also borne out from the record that on 05/09/2011, a letter was sent by the IDA to the petitioners and clarified and admitted that the subject lands were released according to the Resolution no. 221 dated 30/11/1992 and thereafter, the petitioners have also submitted application under section 30 of the Adhiniyam for sanction of the lay out as per the map. All these events indicate that at the time of the purchase of the lands by the petitioners, the lands are exempted from acquisition and therefore, the contention raised on the basis of the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it cannot be said that the petitioners have purchased the lands, which are acquired in the acquisition proceeding. This Court has also considered the similar issue regarding lapse of acquisition of the land in question.
11/ The identical issue has been considered by this Court vide order dated 24/09/2026 passed in W.P. No. 31107 of 2023 [ PUSHPABAI KOTHARI VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS and W.P. No. 1104 of 2024 [ GHANSHYAMDAS KOTHARI AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS] The position of law is also applicable in the facts of present case. This Court has already taken view regarding the issue involved in this petition. The relevant paragraphs of the said order is reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference :
19/ In this background, it is now required to refer to the second contention of the petitioners that the proceeding under sections 6, 9 and 11-A of the Act, 1894 stands nullified. For consideration of this, sections 4, 5-A, 6, 9, 11-A, 24(i) (ii), 31 and 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are reproduced as under :
“4 Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon-
(1)Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] [Subsituted by A.O.1950.] that land in any locality [is needed or] [Inserted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 2.] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company] [Inserted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 2.], a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 4 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).], and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 4 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).].
(2)Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either, generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality;to dig or bore in the sub-soil;to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose;to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any)proposed to be made thereon;to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches; and,where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crops, fence or jungle:Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed Court or garden attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof) without previously giving such occupier at least seven days notice in writing of his intention to do so.
5-A. Hearing of objections
(1)Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, [within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 5, for " within thirty days after the issue of the notification" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).], object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.
(2)Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard [in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 5, for " either in person" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, [either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government] [Substituted by Act 13 of 1967, Section 2, for certain words (w.e.f. 12.4.1967).]. The decision of the [appropriate Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950.] on the objections shall be final.
(3)For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.]Declaration of intended acquisition
6 Declaration that land is required for a public purpose
(1)Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act, [when the [appropriate Government] [Substituted by Act 38 of 1923, Section 4, for " whenever it appears to the Local Government" .] is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2)], that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders [and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1), irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-section (2)] [Inserted by Act 13 of 1967, Section 3 (w.e.f. 12.4.1967).]:[6Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1),
(i)published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or
(ii)published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:]
[Provided further] [Substituted by Act 13 of 1967, Section 3, for " Provided that" (w.e.f 12.4.1967).] that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.
[Explanation 1. In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.
Explanation 2. Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.] [Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 6 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).]
(2)[Every declaration] [Substituted by Act 13 of 1967, Section 3, for " the declaration" (w.e.f. 12.4.1967).]shall be published in the Official Gazette, [and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 6, for " and shall state" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).] the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected.
(3)The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration the [appropriate Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950.] may acquire the land in a manner hereinafter appearing.
9 Notice to persons interested
(1)The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him.
(2)Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.
(3)The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.
(4)In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and [registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 7, for " registered under Part III of the Indian Post Office Act, 1866 (14 of 1866)" (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).].
11-A. Period within which an award shall be made
[Inserted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 9 (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).]
(1)The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.Explanation. In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1984, Section 6, for the first proviso (w.e.f. 24.9.1984).]
31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in
Court -
(1)On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compen-sation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2)If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted:Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18:Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
(3)Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with the sanction of the [appropriate Government] [Substituted by A.O.1950.] instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned.
(4)Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and [competent] [As to persons who are competent to contract, see Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).] to contract in respect thereof.
48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed-
(1)Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the cquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
(2)Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.
(3)The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.
Section 24 in The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.
(1)Notwithstanding anything containe in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-
(a)where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b)where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
20/ Keeping these Sections in mind, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in earlier occasion on 26/04/2010, whereby the Division Bench had struck down invoking of urgency under section 17(4) and granted liberty to the petitioners to file objections under section 5A and 48 of the Act and in view of that, all the proceedings beyond the stage of 5A, automatically stood nullified. Therefore, there is some substance in the submissions made by the petitioners that in the eyes of law, no Award qua the petitioners-landowners is existing pursuant to the said notification. It is also required to be considered the submissions made by the petitioners that petitioners-landowner under section 5A r/w 48 of the Act, 1894 has filed objections before the competent authority, which is pending, even after lapse of around 9 years and another petition i.e. W.P. no. 13248 / 2024 was filed pursuant to the said proceeding, which is still pending for consideration and is kept for hearing along with these two matters, which will be decided by way of passing separate order. It is also required to be noted that from the scheme of the Act, 1894, it transpires that only after adjudication under section 5A, the competent authority can proceed further for the proceedings under section 6,9 and 11A of the Act, 1894. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents that the compensation for the present petitioners-landowners has already been deposited is not found in consonance with the legal positiion as the final award for the petitioners is yet to be adjudicated in the eyes of the Law. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners, on that count also, requires to be accepted.
21/ Another contention raised by the petitioners is that there is change in public purpose during the course of acquisition. It is pointed out by the petitioners as well as the respondents from the record that the State Government in its notification under section 4 dated 03.10.2002 had notified that the said Land is required or is likely to be required for the public purpose set out in column (6) of the Schedule, notice to that effect was thereby given to all the concerned persons in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (1) of section 4 of the LA Act, 1894. It was further directed that the provisions of section 5-A of the said Act shall not apply in relation to the said Land as the provisions of section 17 of the said Act have been made applicable. Invoking of urgency Clause is challenged before this Hon'ble Court keeping that thing in mind. It is also relevant to note that the Government has also stated on record that the public purpose has now been changed and public purpose is now changed as mentioned in the Master Plan Indore -2021. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioners that there could not have been in law a change in the public purpose subsequent to issuance of Section 4 Notification under the Act, 1894 and if a change in public purpose is permitted to the Government after issuance of Section 4, then the filing of 5-A becomes redundant and the objections under section 5A are filed keeping in mind the public purpose specified in Section 4 notification. It is also relevant to refer to the case laws cited by the petitioners i.e. Narpat Singh vs. Jaipur Development Authority (2002) 4 SCC 666 wherein it is held that the land acquired for the purpose, for which must be used. It is also relevant to refer to another judgment delivered in the case of Lal Bahadur vs State of UP (2018) 15 SCC 407. relied by the petitioners, of which relevant paragraphs no. 12 and 25 are reproduced as under :
12.Firstly, we take up the issue regarding change of the area from green belt to a residential one. It is not in dispute that the area had been reserved for green belt in 1995 Master Plan. We find that it was absolutely unwarranted exercise of power on the part of the respondents to change the area from green belt to residential one in Master Plan 2021. Learned Senior Counsel is right that some invisible hand was behind the change that is why the respondents acted in tandem and the notification under section 4 of the Act had been issued on the same very day on which the Master Plan had been finalised by the State Government. Even before the master plan was notified in the Gazette 09-04-2005, under the Act of 1973, the notification had been issued under section 4 of the Act on 31.03.2005. We wholly agree with the submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that change of the area from green belt to residential was, in fact, in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in Articles 21 and 48A and also 51A (g) of the Constitution.
25.As we have held that exercise of conversion was not legal one that will have some impact on the validity of the notification under Section 4 and dispensation of enquiry to be held under Section 5A but in the instant case we find that since the first prayer of the appellant had been allowed, the area has been ultimately reserved and utilized for the purpose of green belt only and as permitted by this Court park had been developed and it shall be maintained as such. We need not go into further into question of dispensation of inquiry whether it was rightly dispensed with. In view of subsequent development and relief granted to appellants we decline to intervene.
22/ Therefore, there is also substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that the change of public purpose during the course of acquisition is having good cause which requires to be considered positively in favour of the petitioners.
23/ Last contention raised by the petitioners is regarding purpose of Scheme no. 139, no longer exists qua the petitioners land. He has submitted that the purpose of the Scheme No.139 was initially proposed for construction of MR-10 road, flyover and Industrial plots. But, after implementation of Master Plan Indore -2021, during the pendency of litigation, the purpose of Scheme No. 139 was not possible to be implemented as the land use of the whole are modified as per the 'Super Corridor. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that the petitioners has already surrendered area admeasuring 4.111 hectares, upon which the MR-10 Road and Flyover has been constructed long back and the MR-10 stands developed and completed further the purposes of industrial plots can never be developed by IDA and hence the land of the petitioners is no longer required for the purposes of Scheme No. 139. This contention is found good as the purpose of the land acquisition as originally proposed under section 4 of Act, 1894 stands changed and vitiated to such an extent, upon implementation of Master Plan Indore 2008. Therefore, there is some substance in the submission that the proceedings of land acquisition have lapsed on this count also.
24/ Therefore, considering the submissions made by counsel for the respondents, whereby counsel for the respondents has mainly acted on the aspect of taking over possession by drawing Panchanama, deposit of the compensation amount before the Collector and the some observations made in the judgment in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). There is no dispute about the ratio of the said judgment and the observations made in that judgment, which is otherwise, binding, but considering the fact that the witness Ramprasad S/o Ratan Singh on 26/08/2010 has filed an affidavit, which is produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which clearly submits that he has not signed the Panchanama, therefore, in absence of any material like notice etc. or also by considering fact that the Panchanama does not bear the signature of the petitioners or any representative of the petitioners, speaks that such Panchanama cannot be relied upon in the eyes of law. It is also required to be noted that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the order of status-quo vide order 10/10/2005 passed in S.L.P in respect of the said land. Though there are several litigation between the parties for various reasons, one fact transpires that the physical possession still remains with the petitioners. It also transpires that though it is claimed that the possession of the land in question is taken by the respondent / IDA by drawing Panchanama, such factum is disputed before the appropriate Court much earlier and thereafter also, considering the fact that the amount of compensation, though deposited before the Collector by the IDA, it is neither deposited before the concerned Reference Court, nor paid to the petitioners / original landowner and also considering the fact that there is serious doubts about the validity and legality of the proceedings in factual background of the present case, more particularly, in view of the fact that the application filed by the petitioners under section 5-A of the Act, 1894 is still pending, therefore, further proceeding pursuant to Section 4 Notification and more particularly the proceedings under sections 6, 9 and 11-A of the Act, 1894 cannot be proceeded unless the objections under section 5-A of the Act, 1894 is adjudicated by the Competent Authority. All these aspects are in favour of the petitioners, though this Court is conscious that the Court should be very slow in interfering with the process of land acquisition on the count of individual interest by considering the larger interest. However, the material available on the record clearly establishes that in view of the objections filed under section 5-A of the Act, 1894, the other proceedings initiated pursuant to sections 6, 9 and 11-A of the Act, 1894 qua the petitioners are not to be considered in accordance with law and the Award, if any, passed by the concerned Officer cannot be considered in consonance with the provisions of the Law and also considering the fact that now, the purpose has changed in view of the Indore Development Plan for the land in question and the land in question is admittedly occupied by the petitioners for years together and crops of the petitioners is also standing as claimed by the petitioners, which is also indicated from the photographs produced by the petitioners in the petition, I am of the view that action of the respondents / Authority for claiming the land of the petitioners as acquired land and this is a fit case where the Court has to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the action of the respondents/ Authority can be considered as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional against the settled position of law and in violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which is constitutional right and in view of section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, it can be easily inferred that as the possession is not taken over or the amount of compensation is not paid, in such condition, the proceeding will be deemed to have lapsed.
25/ It is also relevant here to refer to the judgment delivered in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs. Aalamgit and Others reported in (2025) 6 SCC 397, of which, for the sake of reference, relevant paragraphs no. 23 to 25 are reproduced as under :
23.Take note of the said contention in such cases, we reserve liberty to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all available contentions with regard to the validity of the acquisition which have been undertaken under the LA Act of 1894 before the High Court. It is needless to observe that those contentions would be considered on their own merits de hors any contention raised under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
24.15. It was further contended by learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers that between the period of the impugned orders of the High court and today when the matters are being remanded to the High Court for reconsideration there have been certain developments, there may be third party rights created, there may be other developmental activities which have taken place on the land sought to be acquired. This is because there may have been quashing of the acquisition notifications and/or orders being passed by holding that there was lapse of acquisition under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act and further on the basis of other contentions which were accepted by the High Court and there may also have been release of those lands to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers as a consequence.
25.Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers contended that having regard to the long lapse of time between the quashing of the acquisition or a declaration that they have lapsed and the matters now being remanded to the High court for reconsideration and there being subsequent developments with regard to the subject land in question, liberty may be reserved to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise all contentions on the basis of equity and in accordance with law. We find that such a request made is reasonable and in the circumstances, we reserve liberty to the respondents-land owners/subsequent purchasers to raise those contentions before the High Court. Obviously appellant-State will have an opportunity to also oppose those contentions in accordance with law.
26/ It is also relevant to refer to the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675 for the scope of exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of reference, paragraphs no.6 to 10 are reproduced as under :
Writ of Certiorari
6.According to Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol.14, page 121) certiorari is a writ issued from a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal commanding the latter to send up the record of a particular case.
7.H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth define certiorari in these words :-
"Certiorari is used to bring up into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in order that it may be investigated. If the decision does not pass the test, it is quashed – that is to say, it is declared completely invalid, so that no one need respect it.
The underlying policy is that all inferior courts and authorities have only limited jurisdiction or powers and must be kept within their legal bounds. This is the concern of the Crown, for the sake of orderly administration of justice, but it is a private complaint which sets the Crown in motion."(Administrative Law, Eighth Edition, page 591).
8.The learned authors go on to add that problem arose on exercising control over justices of the peace, both in their judicial and their administrative functions as also the problem of controlling the special statutory body which was addressed to by the Court of King's Bench. "The most useful instruments which the Court found ready to hand were the prerogative writs. But not unnaturally the control exercised was strictly legal, and no longer political. Certiorari would issue to call up the records of justices of the peace and commissioners for examination in the King's Bench and for quashing if any legal defect was found. At first there was much quashing for defects of form on the record, i.e. for error on the face. Later, as the doctrine of ultra vires developed, that became the dominant principle of control" (page 592).
9.The nature and scope of the writ of certiorari and when can it issue was beautifully set out in a concise passage, quoted hereafter, by Lord Chancellor Viscount Simon in Ryots of Garabandho and other villages Vs. Zamindar of Parlakimedi and Anr. – AIR 1943 PC 164.
"The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may issue out of a superior Court requiring that the record of the proceedings in some cause or matter pending before an inferior Court should be transmitted into the superior Court to be there dealt with. The writ is so named because, in its original Latin form, it required that the King should "be certified" of the proceedings to be investigated, and the object is to secure by the exercise of the authority of a superior Court, that the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal should be properly exercised. This writ does not issue to correct purely executive acts, but, on the other hand, its application is not narrowly limited to inferior "Courts" in the strictest sense. Broadly speaking, it may be said that if the act done by the inferior body is a judicial act, as distinguished from being a ministerial act, certiorari will lie. The remedy, in point of principle, is derived from the superintending authority which the Sovereign's Superior Courts, and in particular the Court of King's Bench, possess and exercise over inferior jurisdictions. This principle has been transplanted to other parts of the King's dominions, and operates, within certain limits, in British India."
10.Article 226 of the Constitution of India preserves to the High Court power to issue writ of certiorari amongst others. The principles on which the writ of certiorari is issued are well-settled. It would suffice for our purpose to quote from the 7-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors. – (1955) 1 SCR 1104. The four propositions laid down therein were summarized by the Constitution Bench in The Custodian of Evacuee Property Bangalore Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc. – (1961) 3 SCR 855 as under :-
"……the High Court was not justified in looking into the order of December 2, 1952, as an appellate court, though it would be justified in scrutinizing that order as if it was brought before it under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a writ of certiorari. The limit of the jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing writs of certiorari was considered by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Ahmad Ishaque 1955-I S 1104 : ((s) AIR 1955 SC 233) and the following four propositions were laid down :-
"(1)Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction;
(2)Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice;
(3)The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.
(4)An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision."
29// Considering the material available on the record and in view of the above discussions regarding the contentions raised by the respondent / IDA in written submissions, having not done so, there is inaction on the part of the respondent / Authority and consequently, it can be said that neither the possession has been taken over, nor the compensation has been paid to the petitioners and the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [time lag of more than one year between section 4 Notification and no declaration under section 6 till today as well as the new Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and therefore, considering all these aspects and the above mentioned discussions, the written submissions made by counsel for the respondent / IDA are not helpful to the respondents and the case of the petitioners is required for the consideration of the prayers made in present petition.
12/ In light of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition is required to be allowed by granting the relief prayed in the petition and by quashing the letters 29/03/2015 and 17/04/2015 [Annexure-P/9 and P/10 respectively] and also by declaring that the land in question of the petitioners which is mentioned in para no. 5.1 of the petition, may be considered as lapsed from the Scheme no. 114 Part-II and accordingly, the respondents may be restrained from taking any further action against the petitioners by considering the lapse of acquisition of lands in question from the Scheme no. 114 Part-II .
23/ Accordingly, present petition is allowed and disposed of.
CC as per rules.