Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tirathdas Saukatrai Projects Pvt Ltd ... vs Indore Development Authority on 16 March, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.4321/2017
(Tirathdas Saukatrai Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Indore Development Authority)
&
W.P.No.18005/2017
(Rameshwar Pratap Singh and another Vs. Indore Development
Authority)
Indore: Dated 16/03/2018
Shri V.Asudani, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. M.Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard.
This Order will also govern the disposal of W.P.No.18005/2017 since it is jointly submitted by the counsel for the parties that both these writ petitions involve the same issue in identical facts situation.
For convenience, the facts have been noted from 4321/2017. In nutshell, the petitioner's case is that land of the petitioner was originally included in the scheme No.164 framed by the respondent-Indore Development Authority (In short 'IDA') and the said scheme was quashed by the Division Bench of this court by order dated 16.2.2017 and the said order was upheld by the Hon. Supreme Court by order dated 5.5.2017.
Further case of the petitioner is that the scheme was later renamed as Scheme No.168 and the declaration in terms of Section 50(1) of M.P.Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam was issued on 7.3.2008 but the said scheme also lapsed on 1.12.2010 and now again the scheme has been renamed as Scheme No.175 and the preliminary notification under section 50(1) of the Act has been issued on 10.9.2011 and since then the matter is pending and the petitioner is not able to utilize his land.
When the matter is taken-up today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the identical circumstances, another land holders whose land has been included in Scheme No.175 had filed W.P.No.7075/2015 wherein they had made a statement in the open court that they were ready to give 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4321/2017 (Tirathdas Saukatrai Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Indore Development Authority) & W.P.No.18005/2017 (Rameshwar Pratap Singh and another Vs. Indore Development Authority) their land by agreement, keeping in view section 56 of the Act, therefore the said writ petition was disposed of with certain directions by order dated 29.3.2016 and the order of the writ court had been upheld by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.261/2016 by order dated 16.2.2017 by issuing certain further directions and SLP against the said order was also dismissed and now therefore the petitioner is claiming parity and praying for same directions.
Learned counsel for respondent though has not disputed that the petitioners case stand on the same footing but has submitted that the Board has taken the decision Annx.R/4 to give 30.56% of the developed land in lieu of the land of land holders located in Scheme No.175, therefore the said aspect is to be considered.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that case of the petitioners stand on the same footing as the case of Smt. Rupali (supra) in W.P.No.7075/2017 which has been decided earlier by the writ court by order dated 29.3.2016. In the present case also learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made a statement in the open court that petitioners are ready to give their land by agreement under section 56 of the Act. The co-ordinate Bench while deciding the case of Smt. Rupali(supra) (W.P.No.7075/2015) has held as under :-
"This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. In the present case the facts are slightly distinguishable as the petitioners have stated in open Court that they are ready to give their land by agreement, keeping in view Section 56 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 which reads as under :-
" 5 6.- Acquisition of land for Town and Country Development Authority.- The Town and Country 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4321/2017 (Tirathdas Saukatrai Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Indore Development Authority) & W.P.No.18005/2017 (Rameshwar Pratap Singh and another Vs. Indore Development Authority) Development Authority may at any tie after the date of publication of the final town development scheme under section 50 but not later than three years therefrom, proceed to acquire by agreement the land required for the implementation of the scheme and, on its failure so to acquire, the State Government may, at the request of the Town and Country Development Authority, proceed to acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (No.1 of 1894) and on the payment of compensation awarded under that Act and any other charges incurred by the State Government in connection with the acquisition, the land shall vest in the Town and Country Development Authority subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed."
It has not been disputed that while acquiring the land by agreement or while acquiring the land by taking into account Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, same amount of compensation has to be paid to the land owners as they are ready to give their land and therefore, they are certainly entitled for compensation, keeping in view Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Resultantly, present petition is disposed of with following directions :-
1. The offer made by the petitioner in the open Court should be treated as offer under Section 56 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.
2. In case, Indore Development Authority wants to acquire the land, it shall pay compensation keeping in view the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a period of 6 months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
3. It is made clear that, in case, the land is not acquired in spite of the willingness on the part of the petitioners within six months and no compensation is paid keeping in view the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land shall revert back to the land owners and IDA shall issue a no objection certificate in regard to land in 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4321/2017 (Tirathdas Saukatrai Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Indore Development Authority) & W.P.No.18005/2017 (Rameshwar Pratap Singh and another Vs. Indore Development Authority) question within 30 days thereafter.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs."
The aforesaid decision of the Single Bench was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench in W.A.No. 261/2016 and Writ Appeal has been disposed of by holding as under :-
"21. From the aforesaid, we are of the view that respondents No.1 and 2 cannot be deprived from utilizing of the property in question for an indefinite period. It is also not in dispute that provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1973, on which basis of which direction has been made is directory in nature. There is no deeming provision that if the land development authority fails to acquire land within the specified period, as provided in the Adhiniyam of 1973, then the land would be reverted back to the landowners and in that circumstances, the Indore Development Authority is bound to issue "No Objection Certificate" to respondents No.1 and 2, so that the landowners can use their land for any other purpose,as per Master Plan. The order of the learned Writ Court was passed on 29.03.2006, but till today, no action has been taken by the appellant - Indore Development Authority to comply with the order passed in the writ petition, and therefore, we are of the view that the learned Writ Court has rightly directed the appellant that the offer made by respondents No.1 and 2 in open Court should be treated as offer under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and shall pay compensation, keeping in view the Act of 2013 within the specified period. In case the land is not acquired and no compensation is paid, then appropriate action shall be taken by the appellant so that the land shall revert back to the landowners, as directed by the learned Writ Court.
22. With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal No.261/2016 and Writ Appeal No.262/2016 are disposed of, with no order as to costs."
The only change which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent is the decision of the Board as contained in Annx.R/4 in respect of offering the developed land in lieu of the land acquired. Such a decision does not form subject 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.4321/2017 (Tirathdas Saukatrai Projects Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Indore Development Authority) & W.P.No.18005/2017 (Rameshwar Pratap Singh and another Vs. Indore Development Authority) matter of any agreement arrived at between the parties, therefore it would be open to the parties to take into account the said decision of the Board in case if the parties arrive at any agreement.
Hence with the aforesaid exception, the present writ petitions are disposed of by holding that the directions issued in the case of Smt. Rupali by the writ court as well the Division Bench will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the present petitioners also.
Let the signed order be placed in the record of W.P.No.4321/2017 and a copy thereof be placed in W.P.No.18005/2017.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge mk Digitally signed by MUKTA KAUSHAL Date: 2018.04.04 17:17:20 +05'30'