Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1576 (MP)

Mahanth Ghanshyam Puri v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-20

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has impugned the legality and validity of the order dated 01.10.2018 by which the power has been exercised by the Collector under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and was declared the acquisition in respect of the land of a third person as having lapsed. While passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has set aside the order of lapsing which was passed in the case of the petitioner in Case No.03/A-6(a)2009-10 vide order dated 14.06.2011, even without issuing notice to the petitioner and granting opportunity of hearing. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the owner of the adjoining Khasra No. 51 preferred an application before respondent No. 2 for release of land bearing Khasra No. 51 on the same consideration and was accorded in the case of the petitioner with regard to Khasra No. 52. The Collector has passed the impugned order at the same time in Para 15.2 of the impugned order has set aside the order of lapsing dated 14.06.2011 without hearing the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that apparently on perusal of the order, it is seen that the petitioner is neither a party nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to him before passing the order. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings and, therefore, the Collector i.e. respondent No. 2 could not have set aside the order dated 14.06.2011 passed in favour of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 Para 15.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Collector-respondent No. 2 for rehearing after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned, in accordance with law and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.