Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 20 (MP)

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2025-01-08

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2025
ORDER 1. This petition is filed on the ground that certain land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1991 when notice for acquiring land under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act of 1894') was issued. 2. Petitioner's contention is that though the land was acquired, no compensation was paid to him and therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"), the proceedings stand lapsed and therefore, there are only two options to the State either to initiate fresh proceedings or to return the land pertaining to the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah along with the Collector, Rewa present in person, submits that the land was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 4.7.1986. Notice under section 4 of Act of 1894 was issued on 10.5.1991. Thereafter notice was given under section 9 (3) of the Act of 1894 on 20.9.1991. On 15.10.1991, the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed reply along with 'vakalatnama'. Final award was passed on 7.6.1993. This award was challenged by the petitioner by filing MP No.2559/1993. Thereafter, certain amendments were carried out. 4. Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah submits that on 12.8.1993, a notice was issued as enclosed by him along with I.A. No.178/2025 filed on 8.1.2025. However, Shri Ruprah fairly admits that this notice (Annexure AR-1) was never served on the petitioner. When this Court asked the Government to show from the original dispatch register that they had sent the notice enclosed along with IA. No.178/2025 as Annexure AR-1, then instead of producing copy of the dispatch register, learned Additional Advocate General has tried to produce some documents which are admittedly not copy of dispatch register. 5. Though Shri Ruprah has taken a plea that he along with the Collector, Rewa worked for the whole night and some more time be granted to them to work out finer details. But the fact of the matter is that this case is pending since 2015. Land was acquired in the year 1993. Therefore, the petitioner is at receiving end for over thirty years. Hence, prayer of Shri Ruprah to grant more time is rejected. But the fact of the matter is that this case is pending since 2015. Land was acquired in the year 1993. Therefore, the petitioner is at receiving end for over thirty years. Hence, prayer of Shri Ruprah to grant more time is rejected. Even otherwise the Collector was directed to remain present along with all the original record. If Collector fails to produce original record to the learned Additional Advocate General then the State is to be blamed and no indulgence can be shown by further extending the time allowing the Collector and the State to further oppress the litigant. 6. Shri Ruprah further submits that on 19.8.1993, High Court passed stay order regarding not dispossessing the petitioner in MP No.2559/1993. Thereafter amendment application I.A. No.7280/1993 was filed, which was allowed and thereafter admittedly MP No.2559/1993 was dismissed vide order dated 25.6.2002. It is submitted that thereafter on 30.8.2002, possession was given by Tahsildar to the Executive Engineer of the MP Housing Board vide Annexure R-1 filed along with I.A. No.10428/2015 and there is no mention of constructed house over Khasra No.493 which was acquired from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner too has produced property tax receipt from 2013 onwards which demonstrate construction in the year 1993 or 2002. It is submitted that on 20.3.2008, the land was mutated in the name of MP Housing Board. On 7.5.2015, MP Housing Board issued notices to the petitioner for vacating the land. Then the petitioner filed this writ petition suppressing the fact that earlier MP No.2559/1993 which was filed on the same issue, was already dismissed. It is submitted that this Court was pleased to grant interim order of status quo with regard to possession as well as demolition. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, the petition be dismissed. 7. It is submitted that this Court was pleased to grant interim order of status quo with regard to possession as well as demolition. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, the petition be dismissed. 7. Shri Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at present he is only pressing relief No.2 i.e. in terms of the provisions contained in section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, since no compensation has been paid, therefore, the proceeding under the Act of 1894 will be deemed to have lapsed and respondents have two choices either to initiate fresh proceeding under the Act of 2013 or to return the land as the proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed as were initiated under the Act of 1894. It is also submitted that even possession of the land not taken physically and only symbolic possession is handed over by the Tahsildar to the Executive Engineer of the Board as is evident from the notice dated 7.5.2015. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court asked learned Collector to point out as to on which date notices were issued and served on the petitioner, then it is fairly admitted by her that only notice which was issued to the petitioner after passing of the award is enclosed as Annexure AR-1 dated 12.8.1993 and admittedly that was never served on the petitioner as is evident from the report read over by Shri Ruprah on the overleaf of the notice Annexure AR-1. Therefore, it is admitted fact that notice issued by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer asking the petitioner to accept or to take compensation was never served on the petitioner. 9. Yesterday this Court categorically asked the Collector whether any cheque was prepared in favour of the petitioner and then it was sent for service on the petitioner and whether the petitioner had refused to accept the said cheque, in response, today Shri Ruprah, learned Additional Advocate General fairly admits that no such cheque or bank draft was prepared in favour of the petitioner. It was also asked whether any notice was issued after dismissal of MP No.2559/1993 in the year 2002. It was also asked whether any notice was issued after dismissal of MP No.2559/1993 in the year 2002. In response to that in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed today, the Collector Smt. Pratibha Pal fairly accepted that no notice was issued to the petitioner in regard to payment of compensation after dismissal of miscellaneous petition in the year 2002 filed by the petitioner but has said that "but it is suffice to state here that notice dated 12.8.1993 was duly issued to the petitioner after passing of the award of the compensation in the year 1993. Copy of the notice dated 12.8.1993 annexed as Annexure AR/1." However, issuance of this notice in a mechanical manner and without serving it to the beneficiary will have no positive impact for the State. 10. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 8.1.2025, it is mentioned that there are no ordersheets on the file to show that Collector/Land Acquisition Officer had directed not to disburse the compensation. In paragraph 4 it is mentioned that no steps were taken to disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioner after dismissal of miscellaneous petition vide order dated 25.6.2002. However, in the next breath it is mentioned that the petitioner had also not approached the authority for collecting the compensation. 11. When these averments are taken into consideration then Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that "The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made." It is evident that since notice Annexure AR-1 was issued as mentioned by learned Collector in her affidavit then that means admittedly the petitioner or his representative was not present when the award was passed. Purpose of issuance of notice is not to fulfil hollow formalities but to make the person concerned aware that award is passed and then subsequent event is to disburse the compensation. Non-service of notice and then taking no steps to disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioner, will attract the provisions contained in section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 especially when in MP No.2559/1993 neither the award was stayed nor the State authorities were restrained from executing the award in relation to payment of monetary compensation. 12. Non-service of notice and then taking no steps to disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioner, will attract the provisions contained in section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 especially when in MP No.2559/1993 neither the award was stayed nor the State authorities were restrained from executing the award in relation to payment of monetary compensation. 12. Sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act of 2013 reads as follows: " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 13. When this provision is taken into consideration, then admittedly compensation has not been paid to the petitioner till date. This fact is admitted, both by the learned Additional Advocate General and the Collector, Rewa who is appearing in person. Thus, even if there is a dispute with regard to possession whether it was taken over not, though that is a contentious issue, in view of the notice Annexure P-7, dated 7.5.2015, issued by the Executive Engineer, MP Housing Board and Infrastructure Development Board, Division Rewa, yet the word used in Sub-section (2) of section 24 is "OR" thus, it is clear that if the possession is not taken or compensation is not paid, thus in any of the conditions, the proceedings will be deemed to have lapsed. 14. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that as far as land contained in Survey Number 493 belonging to the petitioner is concerned, since compensation has not been paid, proceedings stand lapsed qua the petitioner. 14. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that as far as land contained in Survey Number 493 belonging to the petitioner is concerned, since compensation has not been paid, proceedings stand lapsed qua the petitioner. It will be open to the State, if so required, either to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in the Act of 2013 or to allow the petitioner to enjoy his possession. Accordingly, till fresh proceedings are undertaken, notice contained in Annexure P-7 is hereby quashed. 15. In the above terms, the petition is allowed. Respondents/State to bear cost of this litigation which is quantified at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand).