Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540
1 WP No.22704/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 22704 of 2022
RAMESH SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Singh - Advocate for the petitioners through video
conferencing.
Shri Dilip Parihar - Government Advocate for the respondents no.1 to
3/State.
Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate for the respondent no.4.
Reserved on : 16/08/2024
Pronounced on : 28th/08/2024
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declare the impugned award dated 27.12.2021 issued by Respondent No.2, in respect of village Bamhaur Tehsil Nagod, Distt. Satna (M.P.) and consequent acquisition to be null and void in eyes of law and;Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 2 WP No.22704/2022 ii. Issue Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent that no action/step under the impugned award dated 27.12.2021 issued by Respondent No.2, in respect of village Bamhaur Tehsil Nagod, Distt. Satna (M.P.) may be taken under and all such steps are null and void in eyes of law and void ab-initio; and iii. Pass any such or the further order this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that for construction of railway line certain lands were acquired and award was also passed. The petitioners have no objection with regard to the initial acquisition of land. The grievance of the petitioners is against the supplementary acquisition of land. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that a notification under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "Act, 2013") was published in the official gazette on 13/9/2019 and it was also published in the newspaper Swadesh on 5/9/2019 and in other newspapers on 19/8/2019. Thereafter, the notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2019 was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 13/8/2019 and in the official gazette on 25/9/2020 and the award has been passed on 27/12/2021 by SDO/LAO, Nagod, District Satna. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the draft notification issued under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 was vague. The details of the lands were not mentioned. Thereafter, the notification Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 3 WP No.22704/2022 under Section 19 of the Act should have been published within a period of one year, otherwise as per Section 19 (7) of the Act, 2013, the preliminary notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded unless and until the appropriate government extends the period of 12 months. It is submitted that the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 was issued on 13/9/2019, whereas the notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was published in the official gazette on 25/9/2020, i.e. after one year. Furthermore, it is submitted that the award was passed on 27/12/2021, i.e. after more than 12 months of issuance of notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013. (It appears that SDO prepared proposed award on 27/12/2021 and it was approved by Collector on 10/1/2022). By referring to Section 25 of the Act, 2013 it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the award should have been passed within a period of 12 months from the date of publication of notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 and if no award is made, then the entire proceedings for acquisition of land shall lapse unless and until the period is extended by the appropriate government. It is further submitted that in the present case the period was never extended. It is further submitted that three railway lines are already in existence and by the supplementary land acquisition, additional land has been acquired in a most arbitrary manner with no public purpose. The counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others reported in 2005 (7) SCC 627 and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi and others reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 4 WP No.22704/2022
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the State that petitioners did not challenge the notification issued under Section 11 of Act, 2013. The notification under Section 11 of Act, 2013 was issued on 22/7/2019. The petitioners allowed the acquisition proceedings to complete and only after passing of award dated 27/12/2021, the present petition has been filed. It is further submitted that even otherwise it appears that petitioners filed their objections for the first time on 14/9/2020 and did not approach the Court immediately thereafter, as a result, much water has flown under the bridge. It is further submitted that notification under Section 11 of Act, 2013 was published in official gazette on 13/9/2019, whereas it was published in the local newspaper on 19/8/2019 and in Jan Sandesh newspaper on 5/9/2019. The notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013 was published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 13/8/2020, in official gazette on 21/9/2020 and as per the proposed award dated 27/12/2021 the notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013 was also locally published on 30/7/2020. Thus, it is submitted that notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013 was issued within a period of one year from the date of notification issued under Section 11 of Act, 2013. So far as award dated 27/12/2021 is concerned, the counsel for the respondents by referring to the internal page no.3 of award, submitted that in the light of the provisions of Section 25 of Act, 2013 the Collector had extended the period to pass the award, therefore, the award dated 27/12/2021 was within the extended period and thus, it cannot be said that the award was passed after one year of notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013. Thus, it is submitted that the acquisition proceedings were neither rescinded nor have lapsed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 5 WP No.22704/2022
4. Although the respondents have filed their return, but have not filed the copy of the order passed by the Collector, by which the time was extended under Section 25 of Act, 2013. However, after the case was heard and reserved for orders, the State counsel was permitted to provide the record of acquisition proceedings. The counsel for the State has also provided a copy of letter dated 23/12/2021 written by SDO, Revenue, Nagod to Collector, Satna requesting him to extend the time as per the provisions of Section 25 of Act, 2013 and has also provided a copy of notification which was published on 28/12/2024, by which the period of twelve months was extended.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Sections 11, 19 and 25 of the Act, 2013 read as under:-
11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification (hereinafter referred to as preliminary notification) to that effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the following manner, namely:--
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 6 WP No.22704/2022 (2) Immediately after issuance of the notification under sub-section (1), the concerned Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village level, municipalities in case of municipal areas and the Autonomous Councils in case of the areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, shall be informed of the contents of the notification issued under the said sub-section in all cases of land acquisition at a meeting called especially for this purpose.
(3) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall also contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved, reasons necessitating the displacement of affected persons, summary of the Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of the Administrator appointed for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement under section 43. (4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this subsection:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, before the issue of a declaration under section 19, undertake and complete the exercise of updating of land records as prescribed within a period of two months.
19. Publication of declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement.- (1) When the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section (2) of section 15, that any particular land is needed for a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 7 WP No.22704/2022 public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect, along with a declaration of an area identified as the "resettlement area" for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected families, under the hand and seal of a Secretary to such Government or of any other officer duly authorised to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same preliminary notification irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required).
(2) The Collector shall publish a summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme along with declaration referred to in sub-section (1):
Provided that no declaration under this sub- section shall be made unless the summary of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is published along with such declaration:
Provided further that no declaration under this sub-section shall be made unless the Requiring Body deposits an amount, in full or part, as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government toward the cost of acquisition of the land:
Provided also that the Requiring Body shall deposit the amount promptly so as to enable the appropriate Government to publish the declaration within a period of twelve months from the date of the publication of preliminary notification under section 11. (3) In projects where land is acquired in stages, the application for acquisition itself can specify different stages for the rehabilitation and resettlement, and all declarations shall be made according to the stages so specified.
(4) Every declaration referred to in sub-
section (1) shall be published in the following manner, namely:--
(a) in the Official Gazette;Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 8 WP No.22704/2022
(b) in two daily newspapers being circulated in the locality, of such area of which one shall be in the regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) Every declaration referred to in sub-
section (1) shall indicate,--
(a) the district or other territorial division in which the land is situated;
(b) the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area; and
(c) where a plan shall have been made for the land, the place at which such plan may be inspected without any cost.
(6) The declaration referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence that the land is required for a public purpose and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in such manner as specified under this Act.
(7) Where no declaration is made under sub-
section (1) within twelve months from the date of preliminary notification, then such notification shall be deemed to have been rescinded:
Provided that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded:
Provided further that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same:
Provided also that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 9 WP No.22704/2022 same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.
25. Period within which an award shall be made.-
The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same:
Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned.
Whether the supplementary acquisition of land was for public purpose?
7. Before considering the submissions made by counsel for petitioners, this Court would like to consider the extent of judicial review to find out whether land is being acquired for public purpose or not?
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Srinivasa Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Madam Gurmurthy Sastry and Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 675 has held as under:-
"3. Section 3(e) of the Act defined „company‟ under pre-1984 Amendment Act as meaning a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1882 ...
and included a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a registered society within the meaning of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, or any other law relating to cooperative societies for the time being in force in any State. Section 3(f) defined the expression „public purpose‟ to include the provision of village-sites in districts in which the appropriate Government shall have declared by notification in the Official Gazette that it is customary for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 10 WP No.22704/2022 Government to make such provision. Chapter VII deals with the acquisition of land for companies. Article 31 of the Constitution (preceding 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978) prohibits compulsory acquisition of the property for anything except for a public purpose. Public purpose is not capable of precise definition. Each case has to be considered in the light of the purpose for which acquisition is sought for. It is to serve the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of the individual. Public purpose broadly speaking would include the purpose in which the general interest of the society as opposed to the particular interest of the individual is directly and vitally concerned. Generally the executive would be the best judge to determine whether or not the impugned purpose is a public purpose. Yet it is not beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny. The interest of a section of the society may be public purpose when it is benefited by the acquisition. The acquisition in question must indicate that it was towards the welfare of the people and not to benefit a private individual or group of individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition for anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done compulsorily. Admittedly, there is no group housing scheme approved by the State Government. On the other hand, housing schemes are being executed by the A.P. Housing Board under the Act. We are not concerned with the public purpose as amended under the 1984 Act."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Dev Sharan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 769 has held as under:-
"15. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Act, a preconstitutional legislation of colonial vintage is a drastic law, being expropriatory in nature as it confers on the State a power which affects person's property right. Even though right to property is no longer fundamental and was never a natural right, and is acquired on a concession by the State, it has to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 11 WP No.22704/2022 accepted that without right to some property, other rights become illusory. This Court is considering these questions, especially, in the context of some recent trends in land acquisition. This Court is of the opinion that the concept of public purpose in land acquisition has to be viewed from an angle which is consistent with the concept of a welfare State.
16. The concept of "public purpose" cannot remain static for all time to come. The concept, even though sought to be defined under Section 3(f) of the Act, is not capable of any precise definition. The said definition, having suffered several amendments, has assumed the character of an inclusive one.
17. It must be accepted that in construing "public purpose", a broad and overall view has to be taken and the focus must be on ensuring maximum benefit to the largest number of people. Any attempt by the State to acquire land by promoting a public purpose to benefit a particular group of people or to serve any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a large section of people, especially of the common people, defeats the very concept of public purpose. Even though the concept of public purpose was introduced by preconstitutional legislation, its application must be consistent with the constitutional ethos and especially the chapter under fundamental rights and also the directive principles.
18. In construing the concept of public purpose, the mandate of Article 13 of the Constitution that any preconstitutional law cannot in any way take away or abridge rights conferred under Part III must be kept in mind. By judicial interpretation the contents of these Part III rights are constantly expanded. The meaning of "public purpose" in acquisition of land must be judged on the touchstone of this expanded view of Part III rights. The open-ended nature of our Constitution needs a harmonious reconciliation between various competing principles and the overhanging shadows of socio-economic reality in this country.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 12 WP No.22704/2022
19. Therefore, the concept of public purpose on this broad horizon must also be read into the provisions of emergency power under Section 17 with the consequential dispensation of right of hearing under Section 5-A of the said Act. The courts must examine these questions very carefully when little Indians lose their small property in the name of mindless acquisition at the instance of the State. If public purpose can be satisfied by not rendering the common man homeless and by exploring other avenues of acquisition, the court, before sanctioning an acquisition, must in exercise of its power of judicial review, focus its attention on the concept of social and economic justice."
10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Vinod Oil and General Mills and Another reported in (2014) 15 SCC 410 has held as under:-
10. The land was acquired for development and utilisation of the same for residential and commercial purposes in Sectors 9 and 11, Hissar. So far as the purpose of acquisition of land is concerned, the High Court observed that : (Savitri Devi case [Savitri Devi v. State of Haryana, ILR (2007) 2 P&H 178 :
2007 AIHC 2724] , AIHC p. 2727, para 23) the acquisition is not for essential public services such as development of infrastructure, railways, metro or the purpose related thereto, irrigation, water supply, drainage, road, communication, etc. The High Court was not correct in observing that only development of infrastructure, railways or irrigation, water supply, drainage, road, etc. are primary public purposes. Public purpose includes a purpose involving general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to public interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of land is concerned.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 13 WP No.22704/2022
11. The concept of "public purpose" was dealt with in detail in Daulat Singh Surana v. Collector (LA) [Daulat Singh Surana v. Collector (LA), (2007) 1 SCC 641] , in which this Court has held as under :
(SCC pp. 658-59 & 662, paras 49-52, 59-60 & 73) "49. In United Community Services v. Omaha National Bank [United Community Services v. Omaha National Bank, 77 NW 2d 576 at p. 585 : 162 Neb 786 (1956)] the Court observed that a public purpose has for its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, security, prosperity, contentment and the general welfare of all the inhabitants.
50. In People ex rel Adamowski v. Chicago R.R. Terminal Authority [People ex rel Adamowski v. Chicago R.R. Terminal Authority, 151 NE 2d 311 at p. 314 : 14 Ill 2d 230 (1958)] the Court observed that public purpose is not static concept, but is flexible and is capable of expansion to meet conditions of complex society that were not within contemplation of Framers of the Constitution.
51. In Green v. Frazier [Green v. Frazier, 176 NW 11 at p. 17 : 44 ND 395 (1920)] , the Court observed that a public purpose or public business has for its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security, prosperity and contentment of all the inhabitants or residents within a given political division, as for example, a State, the sovereign powers of which are exercised to promote such public purpose or public business.
52. In the words of Lord Atkinson in Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) v. Cannon Brewery Co.
Ltd. [Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) v. Cannon Brewery Co. Ltd., 1919 AC 744 : 88 LJ Ch 464 : 121 LT 361 (HL)] the power to take compulsorily raises by implication a right to payment.
***
59. In Somawanti v. State of Punjab [Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151 : (1963) 2 SCR 774] the Court observed that public purpose must include an object in which the general Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 14 WP No.22704/2022 interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned. Public purpose is bound to change with the times and the prevailing conditions in a given area and, therefore, it would not be a practical proposition even to attempt an extensive definition of it. It is because of this that the legislature has left it to the Government to say what is a public purpose and also to declare the need of a given land for a public purpose.
60. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Somawanti [Somawanti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151 : (1963) 2 SCR 774] observed that whether in a particular case the purpose for which land was needed was a public purpose or not was for the Government to be satisfied about and the declaration of the Government would be final subject to one exception, namely, that where there was a colourable exercise of the power the declarations would be open to challenge at the instance of the aggrieved party.
***
73. Public purpose cannot and should not be precisely defined and its scope and ambit be limited as far as acquisition of land for the public purpose is concerned. Public purpose is not static. It also changes with the passage of time, needs and requirements of the community. Broadly speaking, public purpose means the general interest of the community as opposed to the interest of an individual."
12. Prima facie, the State is the first Judge to determine whether there exists a public purpose or not. But the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. The courts have the jurisdiction and it is their duty to determine the matter whenever a question is raised whether a requisition order is or is not for a public purpose. In Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. Collector [Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. Collector, (2008) 9 SCC 552] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 606, para 133) "133. ... It is primarily for the State to decide whether there exists public purpose or not.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 15 WP No.22704/2022 Undoubtedly, the decision of the State is not beyond judicial scrutiny. In appropriate cases, where such power is exercised mala fide or for collateral purposes or the purported action is dehors the Act, irrational or otherwise unreasonable or the so-called purpose is „no public purpose‟ at all and fraud on statute is apparent, a writ court can undoubtedly interfere. But except in such cases, the declaration of the Government is not subject to judicial review. In other words, a writ court, while exercising powers under Articles 32, 226 or 136 of the Constitution, cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Government as to what constitutes „public purpose‟."
13. While determining the question whether a requisition order is or is not for a public purpose, the facts and circumstances in each case are to be closely examined in order to determine whether a public purpose has been established. The requirement of land for residential and commercial purposes and for development of the sector involves in it an element of general interest of the community and whatever furthers the general interest must be regarded as a "public purpose" as opposed to the particular interest of individuals."
11. If the facts of this case are considered, then except by submitting that since land was already acquired on earlier occasion and three Railway lines are already in existence, therefore, there was no public purpose for supplementary acquisition of land for Railways, nothing else has been submitted to challenge public purpose.
12. Railway lines require other technical support for which infrastructure has to be developed. The executive is the best judge. Although, satisfaction of executive is open for judicial review, but unless and until the said satisfaction is challenged on concrete grounds thereby pointing out that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 16 WP No.22704/2022 satisfaction is perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the satisfaction regarding existence of public purpose.
13. Since, nothing has been pointed out to demolish the satisfaction of executive regarding existence of public purpose, therefore, it is held that supplementary acquisition of land was for public purpose.
14. Whether Notification issued under Section 11 of Act 2013 was vague and if yes, then its effect?
dk;kZy; dysDVj] ftyk lruk e-iz- ,oa insu mi lfpo e-iz- 'kklu jktLo foHkkx @@vkns'k@@ Hkw&vtZu iz-dz- v 82@19&20 i= dz- 351@Hkw&vtZu@19 fnukad 19-8-2019 pwfa d jkT; 'kklu dks ;g izrhr gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph ds [kkus ¼1½ ls ¼5½ es of.kZr Hkwfe dh vuqlwph ds [kkus ¼7½ es mlds lkeus fn;s x;s lkoZtfud iz;kstu ds fy;s vko';drk gS vFkok vko';drk iMus dh laHkkouk gSA vr% lgh Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k iquoZ kl vf/kfu;e 2013 dh /kkjk 11 mi/kkjk ¼1½ mica/kksa ds vuqlkj mlds }kjk lHkh lacfa /kr O;fDr;ksa dks bl vk'k; dh lwpuk nh tkrh gSA jkT; 'kklu blds }kjk vuqlwph ds [kkus ¼5½ esa mYysf[kr vf/kdkjh dks mDr Hkwfe ds lac/a k es mDr /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk nh xbZ 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy;s izkf/kd`r djrk gSA lkFk gh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 ¼4½ ds varxZr dksbZ Hkh O;fDr izkjafHkd vf/klwpuk es fofufnZ"V Hkwfe dk dksbZ laO;ogkj ugh djsxk ;k dksbZ laO;ogkj ugh djk,xk vFkok ,slh vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls bl v/;k; dh v/khu dk;Zokfg;ksa ds iwjk gks tkus ds le; ml Hkwfe ij dksbZ foYyaxe l`ftr ugha djsxkA vuqlwph Hkwfe dk o.kZu /kkjk 12 ds fy, lkoZtfud iz;kstu izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dk o.kZu ftyk Rkglhy Xkzke vtZuh; jdck¼gs-es½ yxHkx 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lruk ukxkSn cEgkSj 16-153 mi eq[; vfHk;ark Yfyriqj lruk jhok fuekZ.k 2 if'pe flaxjkSyh egksck e/; jsyos lruk e- [ktqjkgks 541 fdfe iz- cMh jsyos ykbu fuekZ.k gsrq Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 17 WP No.22704/2022 Hkwfe dk uD'kk Iyku mi eq[; vfHk;ark ¼fuekZ.k&2½ if'pe e?; jsyos lruk ds dk;kZy; es ns[kk tk ldrk gSA e/;izn's k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼Mk- lrsUnz flag½ dysDVj ftyk lruk ¼e0iz0½ ,oa insu mi lfpo e0iz0 'kklu jktLo foHkkx
15. From plain reading of the above mentioned notification, it is clear that neither the details of the lands were given nor the names of the owners of land, whose land was under acquisition were mentioned.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam reported in (2005) 10 SCC 306 has held as under :
5. A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the aforementioned judgment, referring to earlier judgments, have held that notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, if it suffers from vagueness in regard to public purpose, such a notification cannot be sustained. In this judgment, reference is made to the judgment in Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.P. wherein it is stated that the defect of non-mention of the locality where the proposed land was situated in the notification, was a serious defect vitiating the notification. The notification in that case also did not specify the survey number or khasra number of the land. In other words, the notification in the present case is as vague, if not more as in that case. In the said judgment, it is observed thus: (SCC pp. 174-75, para
13) "13. In Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.P. while dealing with the requirements of a valid notification under Section 4 of the Act, this Court observed that the defect of non-mention of the locality where the proposed land was situate in the notification was a very serious defect vitiating the notification. In that case, the Schedule attached to the notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act read as follows:
SCHEDULE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 18 WP No.22704/2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Pargana Mauza Approxi- For what purpose Remarks
mate area required
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rampur Bilaspur Gokal 125 acres For the rehabili-
Nagri tation of East
Pakistan displaced
families, under the
Ministry of
Rehabilitation,
Government of
India.‟
This Court opined that though Section 4(1) does not require the identity of the land which may ultimately be acquired to be specified with too many details but it undoubtedly casts upon the Government a duty to „specify the locality in which the land is needed‟. In Narendrajit Singh case this Court also repelled the argument identical to the one raised by Mr Thakur that since detailed particulars of the land had been given in the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, the absence of those particulars in Section 4(1) notification was of no consequence. The Court said: (SCC p. 129, para 10) „In our view the defect in a notification under Section 4(1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification under Section 6(1).‟ "
(emphasis in original)
6. No judgment was shown by the learned counsel for respondents either to distinguish or taking contrary view. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act could not be sustained.
The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in upholding the notification by merely enhancing the compensation.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 168 has held as under :
12. The description of the land in the notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1), in our opinion, is very cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given, even the precise Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 19 WP No.22704/2022 "locality" has not been indicated. Mere mention of Mandsaur, which is spread over an area of 25 sq. kms.and is divided into various municipal wards, against the "locality" is wholly insufficient description and the respondent or anyone else could not have come to know from that description whether 2.298 hectares of land which was required for acquisition included the land belonging to him or not. The non-disclosure of the "locality" with precision, invalidates the notification and renders the publication of notice a meaningless formality.
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (1970) 1 SCC 125 has held as under :
10. In our view the defect in a notification under Section 4(1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification under Section 6(1). In this case it is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward to explain why the details specified in the notification under Section 6(1) could not be given in the one under Section 4(1). The fact that the petitioners did not go to Court immediately after the publication of the first notification is not a matter of any moment. The defects were not cured and cannot be glossed over by reason of the fact that the petitioners went to Court after the issue of the notification under Section 6(1).
11. Moreover if it was the intention of the Legislature that in cases of urgency a notification under Section 4(1) was not necessary, a suitable provision would have been made in Section 17 for that purpose. The provisions of that section show that even in cases of extreme urgency like the maintenance of railway traffic by reason of any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, the Legislature only thought it fit to by-pass the provisions of Section 5-A but not those of Section 4, sub-
section (1).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 20 WP No.22704/2022
19. If the notification issued under Section 11 of Act, 2013 is considered in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court, then it is clear that the notification was vague and did not disclose the number of Khasra Numbers as well as the names of the land owners. It is not the case of respondents that village Bamhore consisted of only 16.153 hectares of land. Thus, the notification issued under Section 11 of Act 2013 was vague and the said defect cannot be cured by issuing a detailed notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013.
Whether Notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013 was issued after twelve months from the date of notification under Section 11 of Act, 2013?
20. It is clear from Section 19(4) of the Act, 2013, that every declaration referred to in sub-section (1) shall be published in the Official Gazette; in two daily newspapers being circulated in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language; in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil; uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government; in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed. The notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was published in the official gazette on 25/9/2020, whereas it was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 13/8/2020 and it was locally published on 30/7/2020. It is also clear from the order dated 30/7/2020, Annexure P/8, passed by Collector, District Satna that four copies of the notification under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 were sent to the Director, Public Press for publication. It was also mentioned that the aforesaid order be also uploaded on the website and the aforesaid order be also affixed on the public place in the concerning village and be also affixed on the notice board of the office of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 21 WP No.22704/2022 Collector and shall also be sent to the Assistant Director, Public Relations, Satna for publication of the same in the public newspaper. Copy was also sent to Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) to Western Central Railway, Satna for getting the order published in the daily newspaper. Thus, the case of the respondents is that the aforesaid order was affixed on the notice board and was circulated in the concerning villages on 30/7/2020 itself. Notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was also published in the daily newspaper on 13/8/2020 and it is the part of the record of acquisition proceedings and it was also published in official Gazette on 25/9/2020. Section 11 of the Act, 2013 provides that the notification shall be published in the Official Gazette; in two daily newspaper circulating in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language; in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case may be and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil; uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government; in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed. It is the case of the respondents that local publication of notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 was made on 19/8/2019, whereas it was published in Jan Sandesh newspaper on 5/9/2019 and it was published in official gazette on 13/9/2019. If 19/8/2019, the date of local publication of notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013 is taken as the guiding factor, then it is clear that the notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was locally published on 30/7/2020 and was also published in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 13/8/2020, therefore, it is held that the publication of notification under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 22 WP No.22704/2022 Whether notification under Section 25 of Act, 2013 can be issued after acquisition proceedings had lapsed and whether such notification can revive the acquisition proceedings?
21. The Counsel for the respondents/State has provided a copy of letter dated 23-12-2021 written by S.D.O. (Revenue)/LAO, Nagod to Collector, Satna, which reads as under :
dk;kZy; vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jk-½ ,oa Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh ukxkSn ftyk lrkuk ¼e-iz-½ E-mail-ID : [email protected] Øekad 578@vuq vf/k0@HkwvtZu@2021 ukxkSn] fnukad 23@12@2021 izfr] dysDVj egksn;] ¼HkwvtZu 'kk[kk½ ftyk lruk ¼e-iz-½ fo"k; %&Hkwfe vtZu iquokZlu ,oa iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj ikjnf'kZrk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2013 dh /kkjk 25 ds rgr vof/k foLrkj fd, tkus ckcr~A &&00&& fo"k;karxZr yfyriqj&lruk&jhok&flaxjkSyh&egksck&[ktqjkgksa ubZ cM+h jsyos ykbZu ds fuekZ.k esa izHkkfor fuEukafdr xzkeksa dh /kkjk 19 jkti= dk izdk'ku ds i'pkr /kkjk 21 O;fDr'k% lquokbZ dh dk;Zokgh dh tk pqdh gSA izkIr vkifRr;ksa rFkk ekSds ls ;qfDr;qfDr losZ{k.k dk dk;Z] dksfoM&19 rFkk vuqHkkx vUrxZr jSxko fo/kkulHkk mi pquko 2021 ds dkj.k vokMZ ikfjr ugh gks ik;s gSaA Ø- Xkzke dk uke vftZr jdck /kkjk 19 jkti= vuqlkj fnukad 1 fiijh 3-200 gs- 09 uoacj 2020 2 vrjkSjk dyk 1-411 gs- 18 flracj 2020 3 cEgkSj 11-487 gs- 25 flracj 2020 4 Hkkn 1-740 gs- 18 flracj 2020 5 cM[ksj 3-063 gs- 25 flracj 2020 6 vrjkSjk[kqnZ 1-264 gs- 18 flracj 2020 7 e<+k 0-283 gs- 25 flracj 2020 mijksDrkuqlkj xzkeksa esa Hkw vtZu vf/kfu;e iquokZlu ,oa iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj ikjnf'kZrk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2013 dh /kkjk 25 ds rgr leqfpr ljdkj@dysDVj egks;r dks vof/k foLrkj dh 'kfDr;ka izkIr gSA vr,o mijksDr xzkeksa esa 01 o"kZ dh vof/k foLrkfjr fd, tkus dk d"V djsaA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 23 WP No.22704/2022 vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh@Hkw vtZu vf/kdkjh ukxkSn ftyk lruk e0iz0 i`-Øekad 578@vuq vf/k0@HkwvtZu@2021 ukxkSn] fnukad 23@12@2021 izfrfyfi %&mi lfpo vfHk;ark ¼fuekZ.k½ if'pe e/; jsYos lruk dh vksj lwpukFkZA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh@Hkw vtZu vf/kdkjh ukxkSn ftyk lruk e0iz0
22. The Counsel for the State has also provided a copy of the notification issued under Section 25 of Act, 2013, which was published in official gazette on 28-12-2021 which reads as under :
i= Ø- 480&Hkw&vtZu&2021& mi eq[; vfHk;ark ¼fuekZ.k&AA½ if'pe e/; jsyos lruk }kjk yfyriqj&lruk&jhok&flaxjkSyh&egksck&[ktqjkgksa ubZ cM+h jsyos ykbZu ¼541 fd- eh-½ fuekZ.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr xzkeksa ds Hkw&vtZu izLrko izLrqr fd;s x;s Fks %& Xkzke dk uke rglhy dk uke vftZr jdck ¼gs- es½a ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ fiijh ukxkSn 3-200 vrjkSjk dyk ukxkSn 1-411 cEgkSj ukxkSn 11-487 Hkkn ukxkSn 1-740 cM[ksj ukxkSn 3-063 vrjkSjk[kqnZ ukxkSn 1-264 e<+k ukxkSn 0-283 ckjkiRFkj ukxkSn 0-865 [kEgfj;k[kqnZ ukxkSn 0-238 mijksDr xzkeksa ds Hkw&vtZu izLrkoksa esa Hkwfe&vtZu iquokZlu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj vkSj ikjnf'kZrk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2013 dh /kkjk 19 dk izdk'ku fnukad 25-09-20] 18-09-20] 06-11-2020 ,oa 09-11-2020 dks fd;k x;k Fkk] bl izdkj 1 o"kZ dh vof/k iw.kZ gks pqdh gS- vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh jktLo ,oa Hkw&vtZu vf/kdkjh] ukxkSn ds }kjk vokMZ ikfjr u gksus dk dkj.k esa fy[kk gS fd ekSds ls LFky dk ;qfDr&;qfDr losZ{k.k u gks ikus rFkk dksfoM&19 rFkk vuqHkkx vUrxZr jSaxko fo/kku lHkk mi pquko Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 24 WP No.22704/2022 2021 ds dkj.k vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr ugha gksus ls 01 o"kZ dh vof/k foLrkfjr fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS-
Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ds izko/kku vuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa 12 ekg dh vof/k c<+kus dh 'kfDr iznRr dh xbZ gS-
vr% Hkwfe vtZu iquokZlu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu esa mfpr izfrdj vkSj ikjnf'kZrk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2013 dh /kkjk 25 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr mijksDr xzkeksa ds vf/kfu;e ikfjr fd;s tkus gsrq /kkjk 19 dh vf/klwpuk ls vkxs 01 o"kZ dh vof/k foLrkfjr dh tkrh gS-
e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] vuqjkx oekZ] dysDVj ,oa insu milfpo-
23. As per Section 25 of Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings shall lapse, if the award is not made within a period of twelve months from the date of issuance of notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013. However, the State Govt. or the competent authority may extend the time.
24. In the present case, the proposed award was prepared on 27-12-2021 which was approved by Collector on 10-1-2022, whereas the notification under Section 25 of Act, 2013 was issued on 28-12-2021. As already pointed out, the notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013 was issued on 30-7-2021, whereas it was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 13-8-2021 and was published in Official Gazette on 25-09-2021.
25. In the present case, the order under Section 25 of Act, 2013 was notified on 28-12-2021, whereas the proposed award was passed on 27-12- 2021, which was approved by Collector on 10-1-2022. The request for extension of time was made by S.D.O. on 23-12-2021 i.e., after the statutory period of twelve months had already expired. Thus, it is clear that award was not passed within a period of twelve months at all.
26. Now the moot question for consideration is that whether the order under Section 25 of Act, 2013 can be passed even after expiry of twelve months, or it has to be passed prior to the expiry of twelve months.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 25 WP No.22704/2022
27. In Section 25 of Act, 2013, the word "Shall" has been used. Generally, the word "shall" would mean mandatory. But the literal meaning of word "Shall" is not sufficient to draw an inference with regard to nature of statutory provision i.e., whether it is mandatory or directory in nature. It is well established principle of law that some times, word "Shall" can be read as "may" and vice versa. Therefore, in order to find out the nature of statutory provision, the Court is required to consider the very object of the provision as well as the intention of legislature.
28. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bachahan Devi Vs. Nagar Nigam Gorakhpur and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 1282 has held as under :
12. Mere use of word 'may' or 'shall' is not conclusive. The question whether a particular provision of a statute is directory or mandatory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule of universal application. Such controversy has to be decided by ascertaining the intention of the Legislature and not by looking at the language in which the provision is clothed.
And for finding out the legislative intent, the Court must examine the scheme of the Act, purpose and object underlying the provision, consequences likely to ensue or inconvenience likely to result if the provision is read one way or the other and many more considerations relevant to the issue.
29. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the reasons and objects of Act, 2013 which reads as under :
An Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self- government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 26 WP No.22704/2022 provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
30. From plain reading of reasons and objects, it is clear that it takes care of development along with rights of the owners of land. The purpose is to provide just and fair compensation to the affected families.
Article 300-A of Constitution of India reads as under :
300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.--No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
31. The Supreme Court in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 356 has held as under :
96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300-A and a human right as observed by this Court in VimlabenAjitbhai Patel v. VatslabenAshokbhai Patel. In view of the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The appellant Trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance with law.
97. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation. As held by this Court in a plethora of decisions, including State of Bihar v. Project UchchaVidya, SikshakSangh; JilubhaiNanbhaiKhachar v.
State of Gujarat; BishambharDayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., the State possesses the power to take or control the property of the owner for the benefit of public. When, however, a State so acts it is obliged to compensate the injury by making just compensation as held by this Court in Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 27 WP No.22704/2022
32. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 517 has held as under :
21. If a right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300-A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd. v. Darius ShapurChenai.) The principle laid down in the said decision, having regard to the concept of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India may be held to have some application in a case of this nature.
33. The Supreme Court in the case of Dev Sharan Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 769 has held as under :
15. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Act, a preconstitutional legislation of colonial vintage is a drastic law, being expropriatory in nature as it confers on the State a power which affects person‟s property right. Even though right to property is no longer fundamental and was never a natural right, and is acquired on a concession by the State, it has to be accepted that without right to some property, other rights become illusory...............
34. The Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 1 SC 728 has held as under :
42. It is furthermore trite that the Land Acquisition Act is an expropriatory legislation. (See Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.v. Darius ShapurChenai and Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd.)
43.Expropriatory legislation, as is well known, must be strictly construed. When the properties of a citizen are being compulsorily acquired by a State in exercise of its power of eminent domain, the essential ingredients thereof, namely, existence of a public purpose and payment of compensation are Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 28 WP No.22704/2022 principal requisites therefor. In the case of acquisition of land for a private company, existence of a public purpose being not a requisite criterion, other statutory requirements call for strict compliance, being imperative in character.
35. Since, the Act, 2013 is an expropriatory in nature and in view of the reasons and objects coupled with the Constitutional Right as enshrined under Article 300-A of Constitution of India, the provisions are to be interpreted strictly. Since, Act, 2013 has been brought into existence to take into consideration, the chances of development as well as the rights of the owners of land, it is held that word "shall" used in Section 25 of Act, 2013 is mandatory in nature. The purpose behind putting a cap of twelve months in Section 25 of Act, 2013, appears to put a check on the state of uncertainty. Section 11(4) of Act, 2013 reads as under :
(4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings under this Chapter are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, such owner from the operation of this sub-section:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by any person due to his wilful violation of this provision shall not be made up by the Collector.
36. Immediately, after a preliminary notification under Section 11 of Act, 2013 is issued, then by virtue of statutory bar, enjoyment of absolute right of ownership which also includes the right to alienate would come to an end. By putting a cap of twelve months for passing the final award, the owners can be protected from suffering the statutory bar as contained in Section 11 of Act, 2013 for indefinite period.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 29 WP No.22704/2022
37. Therefore, it is held that in case, if the award is not passed within a period of twelve months from the date of notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013, and if the time is not extended prior to expiry of twelve months, then the acquisition proceedings shall lapse.
38. As per Black‟s Law Dictionary "Lapse" means "the termination of a right or privilege because of a failure to exercise it within some time limit or because a contingency has occurred or not occurred". It also means to pass away or to revert to someone else because conditions have not been fulfilled or because a person entitled to possession has failed in some duty.
39. Therefore, once, the acquisition proceedings stands terminated on account of non-passing of award within a period of twelve months from the date of issuance of notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013, then the same cannot be revived by issuing a notification under Section 25 of Act, 2013 at a later stage. Thus, it is held that the time to pass an award can be extended before the acquisition proceedings are lapsed and not thereafter.
40. The aforesaid interpretation is also beneficial to the owners of land.
41. For the reasons mentioned above, it is held that since, notification under Section 25 of Act, 2013 was issued on 28-12-2021, therefore, the same cannot revive the acquisition proceedings which had already lapsed after expiry of twelve months from the date of issuance of notification under Section 19 of Act, 2013 i.e. 30-7-2021 or 13-8-2021 or 25-9-2021. Ex consequenti, the proposed award dated 27-12-2021 which was approved by Collector on 10-1-2022, cannot be upheld and accordingly, they are quashed. All other subsequent proceedings qua the petitioners are also held to be bad and accordingly, they are quashed.
42. It is informed by Counsel for the State that the Petitioners have not collected the compensation so far.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42540 30 WP No.22704/2022
43. The respondents are free to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land as per the provisions of law. If the respondents have already taken the possession of the land of the petitioners, then it shall be presumed that possession has been taken by invoking the urgency clause and the Petitioners shall also be entitled for the benefits of Section 40(5) of Act, 2013. The compensation shall be determined on the basis of market value existing on the date of passing of fresh award and not as it was in the year 2021.
44. With aforesaid observations, the Petition is allowed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-08-2024 15:22:58