Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 103 (MP)

Sadashiv Joshi v. State of M. P.

2003-01-17

DEEPAK VERMA, S.L.KOCHAR

body2003
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern disposal of LPA Nos. 247 of 200 (Alam v. State of M.P.). 273 of 2000 (Ramgopal v. Stale of M.P.), 274 of 2000 (Usman Patel v. Stale of M.P.) 292/2000 (Narendra Singh v. State of M.P.), LPA 390/2000 (Baburao v. State of M.P.), LPA 132 of 2002 (Smt. Parvati Bai State of M.P.) and 401 of 2000 (Namamal (d) through Shrivhand and others v. Indore Development Authority and others), as all these appeals arise out of the common and identical order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since common questions were passed in all the appeals, all the matters were heard analogously and arc being disposed of by this common order. 2. Even though all these matters were listed for consideration of the applications made by respondent No.3. Indore Development Authority (for short IDA), for early hearing of the appeals on merits, but after hearing the counsel for the parties on the said applications, it was thought fit to hear all the matters on merits. It may also be mentioned here that this had, become necessary on account of various applications filed by appellants and respondent No.3 for grant of further stay and for vacating the order of Status quo passed by this Court. Since the order of status quo was causing a great hardship to respondent No.3 and disposal of various pending IAs and M(C)Ps would have consumed considerable time, it was thought fit to hear these matters on merits. They were, accordingly, heard at length. We have perused the records. 3. All the appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single judge in their writ petitions, on 25.7.2000. While disposing of the petitions, the learned Single Judge has given certain directions to respondent No.3, IDA. The relevant and operative part of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, contained in para 7, is reproduced hereinbelow: "7. Resultantly, I dispose of these petitions with direction to respondent No.3 IDA that in case respondent Authority proposes to sell the acquired land or any part thereof without any development having been undertaken or carried out thereon, it shall transfer the land in the first instance to the petitioners from whom it was acquired if they desire to purchase it. Resultantly, I dispose of these petitions with direction to respondent No.3 IDA that in case respondent Authority proposes to sell the acquired land or any part thereof without any development having been undertaken or carried out thereon, it shall transfer the land in the first instance to the petitioners from whom it was acquired if they desire to purchase it. The petitioners are also granted liberty to approach the Government u/s 57 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. On being so approached, the Government or the Director shall make enquiry as may be found necessary and may give such direction to IDA as may be considered necessary in the circumstances." 3A. The appellants are not satisfied with the directions passed by learned Single Judge while disposing of the petitions. In fact, all other questions which were sought to be raised before the learned Single Judge have also been negatived as the questions stood answered by an order passed by the Division Bench in the matter of Sanjay Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, reported in AIR 1991 MP 72 . Against this order passed by the Division Bench, the land owners had approached the Supreme Court, but the SLP(C) No. 757 of 91 was also dismissed on 1.9.1991 and the order passed in the matter of San jay Gandhi Grah Nirman (supra) was affirmed. 4. Section 57 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, which is relevant to be considered in this appeal, is reproduced hereinbelow : "57. Development -- (1) The Town and Country Development Authority shall take necessary steps to develop the land vested in it under section 56 in accordance with the provisions of the town development scheme provided that if the State Government or the Director has, after such enquiry as may be necessary, reason to believe that the Town and Country Development Authority is not taking adequate steps to develop the land or has deviated from the final scheme, it/he may give such directions to that Authority as may be considered necessary in the circumstances. (2) The directions given under this section shall be binding on the Town and Country Development Authority and that Authority shall give effect to them forthwith." This section stipulates that necessary steps to develop the land vested in the Authority would be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the town development scheme. (2) The directions given under this section shall be binding on the Town and Country Development Authority and that Authority shall give effect to them forthwith." This section stipulates that necessary steps to develop the land vested in the Authority would be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the town development scheme. The proviso appended thereto shows that in case of any violation on the part of the Authority, not to take adequate steps to develop the land, or if there is any deviation from the Scheme, land owners can approach the Government or Director to make any enquiry in this regard, who, after consideration of the same shall pass appropriate orders. 5. Rule 19 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Niyam, 1975, which is applicable to the facts of the present appeal, is reproduced hereinbelow: "19. Acquisition of land -- (1) xx xx xx xx xx xx (2). (i) xx xx xx (ii) if the Town and Country Development Authority concerned proposes to dispose of by sale any land without any development having been undertaken or carried out thereon, it shall transfer the land in the first instance to the persons from whom it was acquired if they desire to purchase it." xx xx Sub-rule (ii) clearly stipulates and puts a hindrance in the Authority that if it fails to complete the scheme or carry out the development on the land, then it shall have to transfer the land in the first instance to the person from whom it was acquired, if they desire to purchase it. In fact, the learned Single Judge was fully aware of the rights of the land owners and only with an intention to safeguard the same, the said directions have been given as aforesaid in para 7 of the order. Against such a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we find that no case for interference is made out. 6. However, it was also submitted in some of the appeals that Award having not been passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of Notifications for acquisition, the proceedings of acquisition deserve to be quashed. Against such a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we find that no case for interference is made out. 6. However, it was also submitted in some of the appeals that Award having not been passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of Notifications for acquisition, the proceedings of acquisition deserve to be quashed. However, it is not necessary to deal with this question, for the simple reason as the Award could not be passed because in the earlier writ petitions, out of which the judgment in the matter of Sanjay Gandhi Griha Nirman (supra) was passed, an interim order of stay was passed which precluded the Land Acquisition Officer, to pass the award. Thus, the award could not be passed as it would have violated the order of stay granted by this Court. The award was finally passed after the petitions were disposed of in the year 1991 and thereafter, the IDA has also deposited the amount of compensation as assessed by him, before the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the ground of attack of the appellants that the award having not been passed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of notifications has got no merit, more so, the same cannot be allowed to have been challenged after 11 years from the date of passing of the said award. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 IDA Shri V.K. Jain has given an unequivocal undertaking to this Court, which is in the following terms : (i) that IDA shall not dispose of any land, without undertaking any development in the land, so acquired. (ii) that after undertaking any development, if for some reason or the other, the Scheme had to be abandoned, even then it shall offer the said undeveloped or partly developed land for its purchase only to the land owners first. On their failure to purchase, it shall be offered to others. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the interests of the appellant-landowners have been safeguarded sufficiently by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has further been safeguarded by the undertaking given by learned counsel for respondent No.3-IDA. No further and better directions could have been passed in the matter. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the interests of the appellant-landowners have been safeguarded sufficiently by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It has further been safeguarded by the undertaking given by learned counsel for respondent No.3-IDA. No further and better directions could have been passed in the matter. We find that the appeals being devoid of any merit or substance are hereby dismissed. All interim orders passed in the appeals from time to time would automatically stand vacated. Parties to bear their own costs. 9. A copy of this judgment be retained in each of the connected appeals.