Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2019

Author: Rohit Arya

Bench: Rohit Arya

                                   1                              WP-7784-2018
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                     WP-7784-2018
                      (MADAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                  WP/07814/2018
11
Indore, Dated : 25-09-2019
      Shri Kunji Lal Hardia, Advocate for the Petitioners.
      Shri Ambar Pare, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to

4/State Shri Pankaj Porwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. Petitioners claiming to be land oustees have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the year 2018 with the compliant that their houses though have been acquired but, without payment of compensation. Hence, seek a direction for payment of compensation in the light of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy in the aforesaid two writ petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this singular order.

For the sake of convenience, facts in W.P.No.7784/2018 have been dealt with.

On notice, the respondents No.1 to 4 & 5 & 6 have filed separate counter-affidavits.

Rejoinder is also filed.

On the request of National Automotive Testing and R & D Infrastructure Project under Government of India [(for short, 'NATRIP') respondent No.6], the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhar had initiated the proceedings for acquisition of land falling in ten villages.

Notification under section 4 read with section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued on 16/02/2007 and notice under section 6 was issued on 09/03/2007. Thereafter, notices were issued in respect of lands notified in the notification under section 9 of the said Act.

2 WP-7784-2018 Thereafter, award was passed on 07/03/2009 (Annexure R/6(8). Payment of compensation was made to the land owners and possession was taken over. The details are on record with the counter-affidavit of respondent No.6 as Annexure R/6(6)(colly.). The matter travelled upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order dated 17/09/2015 is placed on record as Annexure R/6(7). In fact, lands of ten villages were acquired as claimed in Annexure R/6(9) at page 66; total area 2950 acres. Thereafter, the testing unit was established by 'NATRIP (Annexure R/6-4) with thirteen testing tracks and are operational.

Petitioners though claimed to be owners of the houses in question situated in villages mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition but do not have title documents except the alleged praman patr dated 07/12/1999 claimed to have been signed by pramukh, Prashahnik Samit, Gram Panchayat Khandwa, Vikaas Khand Nalcha, District Dhar (Annexure P/9); a patta for an area of 30 feet x 30 feet issued in favour of one Madan son of Ramkishan. However, neither the dimensions and descriptions of boundaries nor the details of survey number or the land description, etc., under the land records are mentioned therein.

Heard.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the award dated 07/03/2009 [(Annexure R/6(8)], it is apparent that in respect of each land owner or occupier, details of survey numbers, area of land, valuation, etc., are mentioned. The names of petitioners are not mentioned in the list of 139 affected persons. Under such circumstances, no credence or reliance can be placed on the alleged patta (Annexure P/9) which is totally vague and its veracity itself is doubtful. Be that as it may, since the year 2009 at a distance of nine years, the instant writ petition filed with the claim of ownership and payment of compensation, in the opinion of this Court is based on skeleton facts having no foundation. Besides, in the context of details of owners as mentioned in the award, the claim of the petitioners is found to be based on self-styled facts. In the obtaining facts and 3 WP-7784-2018 circumstances, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted as this Court cannot take recourse to witch hunting exercise to accede to the omnibus prayer made in the writ petition by the petitioners.

Consequently, both writ petitions san merit and are hereby dismissed. However, if petitioners are aggrieved by deprivation of their right, they are required to prove title for which they are at liberty to take recourse of law before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.

A copy of order be placed on the record of connected writ petition.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE b/-