Revachand vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
WRIT PETITION No. 3479 of 2015
CNR No.: MPHC020123422015
REVACHAND AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
hri Amit Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Nilesh Agrawal,
learned counsel for the petitioners .
Shri Sudeep Bhargava - Dy. Advocate General Alongwith Ms
Drishti Rawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Ms Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 / IDA .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 08/10/2026
Delivered on : 15/10/2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting ? Yes / No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
2
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
3
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
4
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
6
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
7
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
8
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
9
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
10
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
11
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.
2.1 Now 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
12
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.
2.2 Even 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.
2.3 Even 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
13
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
14
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
15
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
16
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).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
17
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
18
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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
19
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
20
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,
7.3.2015,
23.3.2015
Letter to Principal Secretary to cancel the exemption under Section 20
of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
21
13.2.1998
R/12 (286)
Consent order disposed off. Principal Secretary to decide
representation status quo to continue till representation is decided.
29.9.1998
R/13 (294)
Representation decided under the hand and seal of Governor
7.12.1998
R/14
WP No. 1859/98 PIL filed by Narendra Bahal
29.2.2000
R/14 (297)
Status quo as on today to be maintained
5.1.2010
R/28
(408, 409)
P/3 (68)
Dismissed but the issue of vesting not an issue in lis, thus
observations are to be read down.
18.10.2013
P/8(84)
WP No 12761/2013 filed.
24.10.2013
R/17 (307)
WP No. 12761/2013 disposed off direction to the State to decide
layout sanction application dated 3.10.2011 filed.
10.11.2014
P/23
WP No 8176/2014 IDA not party, observation made by Court not
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
22
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
23
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
24
KOTHARI VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS and W.P.
No. 1104 of 2024 [ GHANSHYAMDAS KOTHARI AND OTHERS VS. T HE
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
25
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 D eclaration 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
26
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
27
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
28
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
29
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
30
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
31
paragraphs no. 12 and 25 are reproduced as under :
1 2. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
32
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
33
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
34
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
35
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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29260
36
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, t he 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.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
amol
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 15-10-2026
18:09:44