Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sh. Manohar Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 1 --
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 24591 of 2024
SH. MANOHAR AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 24668 of 2024
SMT. MAHIMA TODI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WRIT PETITION No. 24713 of 2024
SMT SHOBHA DEVI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHAILESH
MAHADEV SUKHDEVE
Signing time: 3/28/2025
3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 2 --
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
WRIT PETITION No. 34440 of 2024
LATE SHRI KRISHNAKANT JI BANGAD SMRATI SHAH
MAHESHWARI MARWADI SAMAJ SEWA NYAY THROUGH TRUSTEE
ANAND
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dr. Amit Bhatia - counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Deeptanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
(Heard on 25/02/2025) (Pronounced on 28/03/2025)
1. Since these petitions raise common questions of facts and law they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. Facts are being taken from W.P.No.24591/2024.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the award dated 28/2/2024 passed by respondent No.1, the Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Indore compulsorily acquiring his land.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 3 --
3. As per the petitioner, he is the Bhumiswami of land bearing Survey No.2602/3(s) area 0.209 hectare Kasba Ujjain. It is situated at a distance of approximately 1 Km from Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir. He had purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 29/1/2011. The land use of the land is public and semi public purpose. The petitioner had purchased the land for commercial purpose. On 19/5/2022 a declaration under Section 11(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 2013') was published in daily news paper and in official gazette on 27/5/2022. By the notification petitioner's land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of parking for Shree Makaleshwar Mandir. The same was on the basis of a letter dated 20/4/2022 sent by the Administrator of Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir Prabandhan Samiti to the Collector, Ujjain for acquisition of 2.111 hectare of land for purpose of parking. Thereafter on 5/9/2022 declaration under Section 19 of the Act, 2013 was made. Notice under Section 21 of the Act, 2013 was then issued on 28/4/2023 and petitioner and others filed their objections. The said objections on 6/2/2024 were directed to be considered at the time of passing of the award. Eventually the award has been passed on 28/2/2024 and the objections of the petitioner have been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the objection preferred by the petitioner under Sections 11 and 21 of the Act, 2013 has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 4 --
illegally rejected. The same was not decided prior to passing of the award and was decided in the award itself which is not permissible. Mandatory compliance of Section 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013 has not been made. The appropriate Government without approval of the Parliament imposed urgency Clause under Section 50 of the Act, 2013. The land acquisition for purpose of parking is not permissible because Ujjain is under planning area and there is a town development plan. As per the master plan petitioner's land is not earmarked for purpose of parking hence could not have been acquired for parking. Parking is not covered under the definition of public purpose under Section 3(za) of the Act, 2013. Sub section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 2013 does not recognise parking as public purpose. The Mahakaleshwar Managing Committee initiated the land acquisition proceedings without following the statutory provisions of Madhya Pradesh Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir Adhiniyam, 1992 as per which the Mandir Committee is required to acquire land by mutual agreement only. The reference Court cannot go behind the reference and cannot give declaration that notifications under the Act, 2013 are null and void hence it cannot be contended that the petitioner has alternate remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. The authority can only decide the rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter V and VI. The legality of the land acquisition proceedings cannot be decided by it and it cannot quash the award. If it cannot do so then it cannot be said that the petitioner has any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 5 --
alternate remedy. It is hence submitted that the award deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Orissa State Electricity Board and Anr. ETC. V/s. M/s. I.P.I. Steel Ltd. & Ors. 1995 (4) SCC 241.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that as per Section 41(ha) and Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 all infrastructure and development projects cannot be adversely affected by Court orders. The Schedule to Specific Relief Act puts tourism development also in the category of infrastructure. Mahakal Corridor / Mahakal Lok is an infrastructure project of international standard and for tourism purpose. Bunch of petitions challenging acquisition around Mahakaleshwar Mandir so far as infrastructure project of widening of road have been dismissed by this Court so also has the petition challenging acquisition for building a roap way and parking area. The procedural aspects of acquisition have been raised for the first time in this petition. The objection which was preferred by the petitioner during acquisition proceedings was only in respect to compensation. The said objection has already been decided. The petitioner has an alternate remedy of reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 wherein procedural aspects of acquisition and rights of rehabilitation of displaced persons can be taken care of. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. N.G. Project Ltd Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 6 --
V/s. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain, 2022 (6) SCC 127, of the Delhi High Court in Hari Ram Nagar & Ors V/s. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. (2019) SCC Online Delhi 9747 and various orders passed by this Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that construction of Mahakal Lok and the area surrounding it is an infrastructure project hence the same cannot be stalled in view of provisions of Section 41(ha) and Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but it is observed that in the Schedule to the said Act tourism infrastructure has been defined only to be 3 star or higher category classified hotel located outside cities with population of more than one million and rope ways and cable cars. The construction of Mahakal Lok and the area surrounding the same thus cannot be said to be tourism infrastructure as per the schedule to the Specific Relief Act attracting Section 41(ha) or Section 20-A thereof. The contention of the respondents in this regard hence cannot be accepted.
8. The petitioner in the petition has sought quashment only of the award dated 28/2/2024 and the entire land acquisition proceedings. The petitioner did not challenge the notification issued under Section 40 of the Act, 2013 by the respondents invoking the urgency clause and exemption granted under Section 9 of the Act, 2013. He has straightaway challenged the final award passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 7 --
after the issuance of the notification from time to time under the Act, 2013.
9. The objection which had been preferred by the petitioner under Section 11 / 21 of the Act, 2013 has been duly considered by the respondents at the time of passing of the award and the same has been rejected. It is observed that in the said objection the only ground raised by the petitioner was as regards the quantum of compensation to be awarded to him. He had stated that he deserves to be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,500,000/- along with the statutory benefits. Various sale instances were submitted by him. It was further stated that the sale deeds executed in the Office of Sub Registrar also ought to be taken into consideration. Thus, no objection was raised by the petitioner as regards the land acquisition proceedings themselves. At no point of time was any such objection taken by the petitioner which has been raised by him for the very first time in this petition. The petitioner would hence be deemed to have waived the objections as raised by him in this petition which consequently do not deserve adjudication.
10. As regards the compliance of Section 4 to 8 of the Act, 2013, this Court in Writ Appeal No.117/2025 (Sairabi & Others V/s. Urban Administration and Development Department & Ors.) decided on 11/1/2024 has already considered the said issue and has held that in given facts and circumstances exemption from submission of social impact assessment can be given. It has been held as under :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 8 --
"11. In the case of U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad V/s Chandra Shekhar reported in 2024 INSC 210 the Apex Court has granted exemption from submission of Social Impact Assessment in a given facts and circumstances, relevant para is as follows:-
"20. We may hasten to add that the procedure prescribed under Chapter II of the 2013 Act, mandates to carry out the Social Impact Assessment Study in certain situations. The adherence to such a cumbersome procedure in the instant case will be an exercise in futility for two reasons. Firstly, a major part of the acquired land has already been utilized for the notified public purpose. Secondly, the study referred to above, will delay the assessment and payment of compensation to the true tenure holders/owners of Khasra No.673. Consequently, we direct the appropriate Government to dispense with the procedure contemplated under Chapter II of the 2013 Act."
11. As regards invocation of the urgency Clause under Section 40 of the Act, 2013, this Court in Radheyshyam Singh & Ors. V/s. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. No.5575/2024 decided on 18/7/2024 has already held that any action taken under Section 40 of the Act, 2013 can be challenged by resorting to the remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 to assail the order passed by the Collector. It has been held as under :-
"27. The main thrust of the petitioners is that the action taken by the respondents was under Section 40 of the Act of 2013, which pertains to special powers in the cases of urgency to acquire a land in certain cases and the said powers of the appropriate government to acquire a land is restricted to the purposes mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 40 and as none of the provisions as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 40 are attracted for acquisition of the land, the entire award stands vitiated.
28. For the aforesaid purpose, the counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the preliminary notification dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 9 --
07.09.2023, wherein the said notification was issued under Section 11 and 40 of the Act of 2013 read with Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 2015. On the basis of the aforesaid, it has been contended that the provisions of said Section 40 has been invoked while acquiring the said land.
29. Even if the aforesaid arguments are considered, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the said award passed therein would be out of the clutches of Section 64. For reference the relevant extract of provisions of Section 64(1) are reproduced herein below :-
"Section 64(1):- Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested :-
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days."
30. The aforesaid sections provides that if any person, who had not accepted the award may write an application to the Collector and request that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the authority, as the case may be, when he has objected to the rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under chapter V and VI.
31. Now, in this context if provisions of Section 40 of sub- section (4) are seen, therein it is provided that whenever in the opinion of appropriate government the provision of sub- section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) are Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 10 --
applicable, the appropriate government may direct that any or all provisions of chapter II to chapter VI shall not apply and if it does so, directly a declaration may be made under Section 19 in respect to the land at any time after date of publication of preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of Section 11.
32. So far as the sub-section(4) of Section 40 is concerned, from the aforesaid provisions, it could be inferred that only the procedural aspects as provided under chapter II to VI shall not be applicable, if any action is proposed to be taken under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 40, as if it shall not apply, as Section 40 itself is a part of chapter V, thus, it is not acceptable that the objections with regard to rights of rehabilitation and resettlement as provided under chapters V and VI could not be entertained in reference under Section 64 and in view of sub-section (4) of Section 40.
33. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioners very well has remedy under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 to assail the order passed by the Collector and in wake of availability of efficacious alternative remedy available to them the present petition is not maintainable.
34. Since this Court has held that petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioners is having alternative efficacious remedy available to him under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter.
35. It is thus, directed that in case petitioners file an application under Section 64 to the concerned Collector then the Collector shall consider the application and if it is not otherwise bar, shall make a reference to the authority so designated in this behalf for hearing and deciding the application of the petitioners on its own merits."
12. Though it is contended by the petitioner that in the master plan of Ujjain the land in question is not earmarked for purpose of parking hence no land acquisition proceedings can be initiated for developing a parking in a place Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 11 --
which is not earmarked for parking, but in this regard it is observed that proceedings for land acquisition have been taken under the Act, 2013 which is a Central Act and it is not necessary for the respondents to acquire the land only for the purpose for which it is reserved in the master plan. No provision has been pointed out to show that land cannot be acquired for any purpose other than the purpose as stated in the master plan. In any case as per the petitioner himself the land is earmarked for public and semi public use. A parking place would certainly fall within the domain of public and semi public use since it would be the general public itself who would be parking the vehicles in the parking lot. Thus the contention that by acquisition for parking the land user would be changed and the same would be contrary to the master plan cannot be accepted.
13. Moreover, under the definition of public purpose as given in Section 2(1) of the Act, 2013 tourism and project for planned development or the improvement of village site or any site in the urban area is included. The acquisition in the present case is being made for parking for the Mahakaleshwar Mandir and Mahakal Corridor / Lok. The same has trappings of a tourism activity. It is also being taken for planned development of area situated within Ujjain which is an urban area. Thus, the contention that the acquisition for parking cannot be said to be a public purpose is not liable to be accepted.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8135 -- 12 --
14. The Act, 2013 being a central enactment would have the overriding effect upon the Madhya Pradesh Shree Mahakaleshwar Mandir Adhiniyam, 1982 in respect of compulsory acquisition of land. Thus, the respondents were not required to acquire the land by mutual agreement as per sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, 1982. The proceedings taken by them in the present matter hence cannot be faulted on that ground.
15. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion all the grounds as have been raised by the petitioners in the petitions are found to be without any substance. The petitions are hence devoid of any merits are are hereby dismissed. Let a signed copy of the order be kept in the record of all the petitions and the original be kept in the record of W.P.No.24591/2024.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE SS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH MAHADEV SUKHDEVE Signing time: 3/28/2025 3:35:20 PM