Article 226 relief is declined after a land-acquisition award where the statutory Section 64 remedy remains available.

The petitioners, residents of Sanwarakhedi and Jeevankhedi villages, challenged the acquisition of their lands for widening and upgrading the Ujjain Simhasth Bypass from a two-lane to a four-lane road with paved shoulders.

They alleged that the road was being widened only on one side, disproportionately affecting their lands, and sought quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 11 and 19 and the order rejecting their objections under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

The respondents contended that the acquisition was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2015; that the SIA Team was lawfully constituted; that the road alignment was a technical matter; and that the acquisition was necessary for a time-bound public infrastructure project connected with Simhasth Mahakumbh, 2028.

They further submitted that an award had already been passed, most affected landowners had accepted compensation, and the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings and the constitution and functioning of the SIA Team complied with the 2013 Act and the applicable Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2015, or were vitiated by the alleged procedural irregularities.

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to widen the road on one side only, rather than acquiring land equally on both sides, was arbitrary, technically unjustified or subject to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable after passing of the acquisition award, particularly in view of the alternative remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

4. Whether the alleged procedural lapses and non-compliance warranted quashing of the acquisition proceedings in view of substantial compliance and the larger public interest involved.

The Court applied Article 300-A of the Constitution, recognising that deprivation of property must be authorised by law and follow the prescribed statutory procedure.

It considered Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 19, 21, 64 and 109 of the 2013 Act.

Section 109 empowers the appropriate Government to frame rules for carrying out the Act, including rules concerning social impact assessment and publication.

Rule 3(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2015 requires the Collector to constitute the SIA Team and provides that its team leader shall not be below the rank of Deputy Collector and shall not be in charge of the land acquisition section.

Section 64 provides an aggrieved person who has not accepted the award with a statutory mechanism to seek reference regarding measurement, compensation, apportionment and rehabilitation and resettlement rights.

The Court also considered the principles in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana, Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana, and Dinesh v. State of M.P. concerning compliance with mandatory acquisition procedures, as well as the doctrine of substantial compliance relied upon in Yudhvir Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal.

It further relied on judicial principles limiting interference with technical road alignment and public infrastructure decisions, including Girias Investment (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty.

The Court held that, in light of Section 109 of the 2013 Act and Rule 3(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2015, the State Rules governed the acquisition and the respondents’ position regarding the SIA Team was prima facie acceptable.

Although the petitioners alleged several defects in the SIA process, public hearing, constitution of the committees and assessment of rehabilitation requirements, the Court found that the respondents had substantially complied with the statutory procedure and that any minor lapses did not justify interference at the writ stage.

The challenge to one-sided road widening was treated as a matter involving technical planning and engineering expertise, rather than a ground for judicial substitution of the respondents’ decision.

The Court also gave weight to the fact that the acquisition award had already been passed, the petitioners had not specifically challenged the award in the writ petitions, and a statutory remedy under Section 64 remained available.

Balancing the petitioners’ private property interests against the public importance and time-bound nature of the Simhasth Mahakumbh, 2028 infrastructure project, the Court concluded that public interest favoured continuation of the acquisition.

The petitioners were left to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act in relation to the award, without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits or prospects of such proceedings.

Any interim relief or stay was vacated, and the connected petition was directed to be governed by the signed order.