Ujjian Development Authority vs Rekhchand & Ors.

Per: Justice Alok Awasthi

This intra-court appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 takes exception to the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Writ Court, whereby Writ Petition No.6656 of 2025 filed by the respondents / writ petitioner has been allowed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that a Notification under Section 4 r/w 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 16.02.1979, followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 13.04.1979 for Scheme No.23 for providing residential plots to the citizens of Ujjain and the adjoining areas. The lands were acquired in two phases pursuant to Scheme No.23. Accordingly, the land situated at Village - Nanakheda, Tehsil - Kothi Mahal, District - Ujjain bearing Survey Nos.502/2, 563/1, 600/2/2, 608/3/2, 601, 502/1, 602/2 total area 1.191 hectare (Sector - I), Survey Nos.604/1 and 657/2 admeasuring 0.272 hectare (Sector - II) & Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2 and 658/3 admeasuring 1.723 hectare (Sector - III) totaling to 3.186 hectares. The aforesaid lands are belonging to the writ petitioners and their predecessor-in-title.

Since urgency clause was invoked in terms of Section 17 of the Act of 1894, therefore, prior to passing of award, actual physical possession of entire block of land admeasuring 3.186 hectare including land bearing Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2 and 658/3 was taken on 13.07.1979 by the competent authority which was also the part of the acquisition of the said scheme.

Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 21.04.1980 under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 in respect of the aforementioned land, determining compensation for the land owners including the writ petitioners, however, the land bearing Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2 and 658/3 were not mentioned in the final award and compensation was also not given, though in the award itself all the survey numbers have been mentioned, for which notice under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1984 was issued.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, writ petitioner / land owners preferred a Reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and the Reference Court passed the award on 19.12.1984 enhancing the compensation only for the land already mentioned in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the compensation has not been awarded for the land in question. Thereafter, the writ petitioners / land owners preferred F.A. No.40 of 1988 & UDA has preferred cross appeal i.e. F.A. No.28 of 1985 before the High Court. Vide order dated 14.09.1955, the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for its fresh adjudications by allowing the amendment application submitted by the claimants.

Thereafter, Writ Petitioners/Land owners had incorporated the amendment in their Reference Application on 20.10.1995, and numbered as Paragraph A(a) as per which the petitioners specifically mentioned the Survey Nos. 562/2, 563/1, 600/2, 601, 602/1, 604/1, 657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2, 658/3 and 659/2 total area 3.186 Hectare, which were already acquired and the possession was already taken on 13.07.1979, however, in the award the learned Reference Court did not award compensation with respect to Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2 and 658/3 total area 1.723, therefore, they are entitled to receive compensation from the Government. Thereafter, on 17.03.1998, the learned Reference Court passed the award and the compensation has been determined to all the land owners / writ petitioners by fixing an amount of Rs.1,94,158/- with interest @ 12% from the date on which the possession was taken i.e. 13.07.1979 after adjusting the compensation which was already paid for total land having 3.186 hectare.

Being aggrieved, UDA preferred F.A. No.311 of 1998 & land owners / writ petitioners preferred F.A. No.500 of 1998 under Section 54 of the Act of 1894. Vide judgment dated 27.07.2017 F.A. No.311 of 1998 was dismissed, however, F.A. No.500 of 1998 preferred by the land owners / writ petitioners was allowed by restricting the compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. After passing of the judgment dated 27.07.2017, the land acquisition proceedings have been concluded and the writ petitioners also accepted the same.

After a lapse of eight long years, the writ petitioners preferred W.P. No.6656 of 2025 on 20.02.2025 claiming the following reliefs:-

Vide order dated 12.01.2026, the writ petition came to be allowed. The operative part of the same is reproduced below:-

Being aggrieved, the Ujjain Development Authority (UDA) is before this Court by way of present writ appeal.

Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the the subject land admeasuring 1.723 hectare (Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2 & 658/3) forms an integral part of the composite block of Scheme No.23 of the appellant / UDA, a public residential scheme for which a large tract of 276 hectares stood acquired at Village - Nanakheda, District - Ujjain. It is further argued that consequent upon the Section 4 Notification r/w the urgency clause under Section 17(1), the possession was taken over on 13.07.1979, thereafter, the land in question was absolutely vested with the State Government. Once such vesting is completed, the same is not liable to be divested by efflux of time or on any other technical plea.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that very foundation of the order passed by the learned Writ Court is that that subject survey numbers were not included in the Section 6 Notification is contrary to the record as Annexure-P/4 reflects the subject survey numbers and original award dated 21.04.1980 confirms that the possession was taken from the land owners by acquiring all the lands belonging to the writ petitioners / predecessor-in-title. Thus, on such technical grounds, the acquisition proceedings could not have been treated as void or lapsed.

Learned Senior Counsel further contends that throughout four decades, the writ petitioner proceeded on the admitted footing that the subject land had been acquired and the possession was taken on 13.07.1979 asserting so on oath in their amended reference and pressing for compensation. Having elected to claim compensation on the basis of acquisition, they be restrained from now contending that the acquisition never occurred.

It is further contended that pursuant to the pleadings of this Court in the earlier round of litigation in F.A. No.40 of 1988 & F.A. N.28 of 1985, the Reference Court passed an award on 17.03.1998 and determined the compensation of Rs.1,94,158/- with interest @ 12% from the date of possession of the entire land, including the subject land. On compliance to the said order, the UDA has deposited the difference amount of Rs.90,297/-vide cheque dated 16.02.1999, against which the first appeal was preferred by the land owners. Thereafter, the compensation was modified and finally determined vide judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed in F.A. Nos.311 of 1998 & 500 of 1998. After passing of the aforesaid judgment, no challenged was ever made before the the Apex Court, hence, the acquisition proceedings and the compensation so paid to the land owners / writ petitioners had attained finality. To prop up the aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v/s Manoharlal & Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and a prayer has been made that the order passed by the learned Writ Court be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / writ petitioners argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Writ Court is legally sound and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Hence, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The first and foremost question which requires our consideration is whether the land is question was part of the declaration / notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 and the possession was taken or not ?

In the record which is before us, a copy of declaration / notification dated 20.03.1979 / 13.04.1979 is also available, according to which the lands of the writ petitioners are mentioned as Survey Nos.657/2 area 0.031 hectare, 658/1/2 area 0.564 hectare, 658/2/2, area 0.449 hectare & 658/3 area 0.679 hectare. In the declaration which was filed before the Writ Court as Annexure-P/4, the disputed survey numbers find place at page No.69 (Survey No.658/3) and at page No.70 (Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2), however, due to negligence on the part of the writ petitioners, Survey No.658/2/2 is missing as the same was in zig zag and hazy form. A clear copy has also been presented before this Court.

The award dated 21.04.1980 also confirms that the possession was taken from the land owners / writ petitioners by acquiring all the lands. Since the compensation had not been determined, the writ petitioners / land owners approached the Reference Court by way of Reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. The learned Reference Court passed the award by enhancing the the compensation only for the land already mentioned in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, however, the compensation was not awarded in respect of land in question. Thereafter, the writ petitioners / land owners approached this Court by way of F.A. No.40 of 1988 and the UDA by way of F.A. No.28 of 1985. Vide order dated 14.09.1995, the amendment application regarding inclusion of land submitted by the claimant was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication.

In compliance thereto, the land owners incorporated the amendment on 20.10.1995 and specifically mentioned Survey Nos.562/2, 563/1, 600/2, 601, 602/1, 604/1, 657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2, 658/3 and 659/2 total area 3.186 hectare which has been acquired and the possession was already taken on 13.07.1979, however, at the time of passing of award, no compensation was awarded with respect to Survey Nos.657/2, 658/1/2, 658/2/2, 658/3 and 659/2 area 1.723 hectare.

Vide order dated 17.03.1998, learned Reference Court framed five issues in respect of the five land in question for determination. Consequently, compensation had been determined and compensation of Rs.1,94,158/- has been fixed along with interest @ 12% from the date of taking possession i.e. 13.07.1979 after adjusting the compensation already paid for total land having area 3.186 hectare. Against the said order, both the parties preferred first appeals. Vide judgment dated 27.07.2017, this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners by restricting compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-, however, the appeal of UDA has been dismissed. The judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by this Court was never challenged before any Court of law, hence, the acquisition proceedings has attained the finality. Thereafter, after a lapse of seven years, the land owners / writ petitioners preferred writ petition before this Court claiming that the possession of the land in question was never taken as the same was not the part of the notification itself.

In paragraph - 17 of the impugned order learned Writ Court has held that since no survey number of the subject land was mentioned in the declaration under Section 6, neither the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 can be made applicable to such land. However, in the record which was produced before us, survey numbers in question are very much there in the declaration / notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 dated 21.04.1980 . Hence, we are of the considered view that the land of the writ petitioner was acquired by the UDA and the same is vested with the State Government.

In paragraph - 25, the learned Writ Court has held that Khasra entries continue to reflect the names of the petitioners in respect of subject land, thereby clearly establishing that the land remained recorded in their ownership and possession. It is a settled proposition of law that the revenue entry does not create, or extinguish land title; they serve solely fiscal purposes for tax collection. Merely the revenue entries have not been changed till date due to the dereliction on the part of the revenue authorities, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners are the owner of the land in question.

It is a settled proposition of law that once land is legally acquired under Section 17 of the Act of 1894 and an award is passed, it vests absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances, and the Government is deemed to be in lawful possession.

In view of the above, we hereby held that the survey numbers in question were the part of the declaration / notification issued under Section 6 of the Act of the 1894. Hence, the plea of the writ petitioners that the subject lands are not the part of the said notification / declaration dated 13.04.1979 is hereby discarded.

So far as the issue regarding payment of compensation is concerned, in paragraph - 5 of the reply, the respondents have stated that in compliance to the order passed by the trial Court, the UDA / respondent have deposited the difference of awarded amount i.e. Rs.90,297/- vide cheque st dated 16.02.19 before the I Additional District Judge, Ujjain. Copy of the cheque has also been filed as Annexure-R/5. In paragraph - 8 of the reply, it has further been contended that after passing of the order by this Court in first appeal dated 27.07.2014, the writ petitioners preferred an MJC for execution of the compensation fixed @ Rs.80,000/- on 16.01.2018, however, after filing of the case, the writ petitioners never appeared before the trial Court, therefore, the proceeding was dropped.

The copy of the proceedings have also been filed as Annexure-R/9 along with the writ petition. From perusal of Annexure-R/9, it can be gathered that on several occasion, there was no appearance on behalf of the land owners, therefore, the proceeding was dropped and case was sent to the record room. Since the cheque has already been deposited by the UDA, the writ petitioners shall be at liberty to withdraw the same, if not already withdrawn, in accordance with law.

In view of the above, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Writ Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed in W.P. No.6656 of 2025, being unsustainable, is hereby set aside, meaning thereby, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Writ Appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.