Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Re-examine Final Awards or Immaterial Questions of Fact in Land Acquisition

The petitioners, residents and business owners near the Maihar temple, challenged a land acquisition notification dated 12.07.2010 issued under Section 4(2) and the subsequent final Award dated 19.3.2012 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The petitioners contended that they were not given a fair hearing, that the acquisition was unnecessary as the temple influx is seasonal (Navratri), and that the procedure under Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Maa Sharda Devi Mandir Adhiniyam, 2002—which favors acquisition via agreement first—was bypassed.

The State argued that notices were duly published in newspapers, objections were considered and decided on 04.11.2010, and the Award had attained finality, leaving the petitioners only the remedy of a reference under Section 18.

1. Whether the necessity and "public purpose" of the land acquisition can be adjudicated under Article 226 after the Award has been finalized.

2. Whether an Award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be challenged for validity and legality via a reference under Section 18 or through a Writ Petition.

3. Whether the authorities failed to comply with the principles of natural justice regarding the consideration of objections.

Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dictates that an Award filed with the Collector is final and conclusive evidence of area, value, and apportionment.

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) regarding the non-return of unutilized land.

Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corp. (2015) to establish that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.

Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (1995) and Naresh Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2019), the court affirmed that there is no power of review over an Award once passed, except for clerical errors under Section 13-A.

The Court reasoned that the necessity of the land due to pilgrim influx is a "disputed question of fact" that cannot be re-examined under Article 226 once an Award is finalized and compensation deposited.

Regarding the Section 18 reference, the Court clarified that its scope is limited to disputes over measurement, compensation amount, and apportionment; it cannot be used to challenge the "validity and legality" of the acquisition itself.

The Court found that the petitioners’ objections had actually been decided on 04.11.2010, prior to the High Court's earlier directions in a previous writ petition, and thus the authorities were correct in not re-deciding them after the Section 6 notification.

Finally, the Court noted that once an Award under Section 11 is passed, it is an offer binding on the State and attains finality, precluding judicial interference unless vitiated by fraud or corruption.

The Court disposed of the petitions with a direction to the respondents to conduct a technical survey and award compensation for such structures/improvements if not already done, and to initiate fresh legal proceedings if any additional land (where shops are situated) needs to be acquired.