Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 620 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bhima

1977-12-05

S.R.VYAS

body1977
Short Note : A notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Government. The lands were required for the construction of the residential quarters of the staff at the Kukshi Police Station. It was also notified that the provisions of section 5 of the Act would not apply as in the opinion of the State Government provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 were applicable. The non-applicants who were the recorded holders of the lands notified in the notification instituted a suit and sought a declaration that the lands sought to be acquired was neither waste nor arable, the State Government were not competent to apply the provisions of section 17 of the Act and dispense with the provisions of section 5 of the Act. Along with this suit the plaintiff's prayed for grant of ad interim injunction to restrain the employees of the State Government from interfering their possession. The trial Court rejected the application but in appeal, ad interim injunction was passed. Held: In this Court it was contended that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge; that the notification issued by the State Government was fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The impugned notification in this case does not prima facie show that the non-applicant's lands which are sought to be acquired are either waste or arable lands. All that has been stated in the application is that the lands are required for the public purpose. There is no mention that the lands are either waste or arable. The question as to whether such mention in the notification is or is not required to be made by the provisions of the Act is a question which is still to be tried and decided between the parties. The plaintiffs have, therefore, prima facie case and in the circumstances it cannot be said that there were no ground for the grant of ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs. Ishwarlal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 870 relied on. Revision dismissed.