Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge a final land acquisition award involving disputed questions of fact.

The petitioners, residents and business owners near the Maihar temple, challenged a land acquisition award dated 19.03.2012 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The State initiated acquisition to accommodate the influx of pilgrims.

The petitioners contended they were denied a fair hearing, that the acquisition bypassed the agreement procedure under Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Maa Sharda Devi Mandir Adhiniyam, 2002, and that their lands were too far from the temple to be necessary.

Procedurally, some petitioners had previously approached the High Court, which directed the consideration of their objections; however, the authorities maintained that objections were already decided prior to the award's finalization.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge the validity and legality of a final land acquisition award passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894.

2. Whether the acquisition of land for temple development constitutes a "necessity" that can be adjudicated by the Court as a question of fact.

3. Whether the authorities failed to assess compensation for structures (houses, shops, wells, trees) as indicated in their own internal correspondence.

The court applied Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which mandates that an award filed with the Collector is final and conclusive evidence of area, value, and apportionment.

It relied on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 to establish that Section 101 of the 2013 Act regarding unutilized land does not apply to 1894 Act acquisitions.

The principle from Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (1995) 1 SCC 221 and Naresh Kumar v. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 9 SCC 416 was applied, holding that an award is an "offer" by the State and, once final, cannot be reviewed or challenged under Article 226 unless vitiated by fraud or corruption.

Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corp. (2015) 4 SCC 204 was used to establish that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that once an award is finalized under Section 11 and filed under Section 12, it attains a statutory finality that precludes a challenge to its legality via a writ petition, except in extreme cases like fraud, which were not proven here.

The Court found that the "necessity" of the land for temple pilgrims is a disputed factual matter unsuitable for determination under Article 226.

Regarding the procedure under the Adhiniyam, 2002, the Court noted that Section 33 allows for acquisition by agreement but does not bar the state's power to proceed under the 1894 Act if agreements fail.

The Court observed from Annexure P/10 that while the land was acquired, the technical survey and valuation for trees, bores, and houses had not been completed at the time of the letter, indicating a gap in the compensation process.

The court disposed of the petitions with directions that the respondent authorities must conduct a survey and assess compensation for houses, trees, bores, and wells if not already done, in accordance with the letter dated 27.04.2012, and if shops are situated on lands not formally acquired but required, the State must draw appropriate legal proceedings for acquisition and pay compensation.