Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 91 (MP)

Abdul Majid v. Commissioner

2016-02-04

J.K.JAIN, P.K.JAISWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs :- 7.1 Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification dated 1.12.1976 and 19.8.1977 issued for acquiring the land of the petitioner; or 7.2 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus direct the respondents to hand over the peaceful possession of the land to the petitioner; and 7.3 Pass such other orders and further order/directions as are deemed just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the present case. 2. Earlier in the year 1990, a civil suit was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on the ground that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Against the aforesaid order of the dismissal dated 3.4.1998, First Appeal No.299/1998 was filed by the petitioner. The learned Single Judge considering the stand taken by the Ujjain Municipal Corporation wherein they have stated that the land in question was acquired after following the due process as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Award was delivered and, thereafter, an application was also preferred by the father of the appellant for enhancement of the awarded amount under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. It is also pointed out that after acquiring the land in question, a road has also been constructed and the remaining portion is now being used for widening the road and for constructing the pavement. 3. Considering these facts, the Ist Appellate Court by order dated 11.3.2015, passed in First Appeal No.299/1998 dismissed the appeal in the light of the fact that land was acquired in the year 1998, the procedure was duly followed by the State Government and no fraud has been played by the State Government of whatsoever kind and in light of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion in respect of the jurisdiction and upheld the finding recorded by the trial Court. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.(s) 22643/2015. During the course of the arguments, the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the petition. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.(s) 22643/2015. During the course of the arguments, the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Prayer was allowed and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 1.12.2015 with liberty to seek such other redress as may be permissible in law subject to all just exceptions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a delay of 40 years, but as his suit was dismissed on the ground that the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the matter went upon to the Supreme Court and, thereafter, the Supreme Court by order dated 1.12.2015 permitted the petitioner for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. 6. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that after acquiring the land in question, the Award was passed and thereafter an application for enhancement of compensation was filed by the father of the petitioner under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, no case to reconsider the issue which has been upheld by the High Court, as prayed in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. 7. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.