Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maya And 38 Ors. vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 4 ... on 17 October, 2019
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 WP-12137-2013
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-12137-2013
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((MAYA AND 38 ORS. Vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND 4
ORS.))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
WP/12039/2012, WP/12040/2012, WP/02434/2013, WP/04026/2013, WP/04027/2013,
WP/04028/2013, WP/05850/2013, WP/06119/2013, WP/06320/2013, WP/06419/2013,
WP/06576/2013, WP/06634/2013, WP/06635/2013, WP/06636/2013, WP/06637/2013,
WP/07764/2013, WP/07830/2013, WP/07904/2013, WP/07962/2013, WP/08029/2013,
WP/08030/2013, WP/08035/2013, WP/08066/2013, WP/08069/2013, WP/08156/2013,
WP/08157/2013, WP/08203/2013, WP/08205/2013, WP/08207/2013, WP/08209/2013,
WP/08423/2013, WP/08425/2013, WP/08664/2013, WP/09270/2013, WP/09272/2013,
WP/12137/2013, WP/01940/2015, WP/01958/2015, WP/02234/2015, WP/02237/2015,
WP/02469/2015, WP/06649/2015, WP/02782/2016,
24
Indore, Dated : 17-10-2019
Shri Vinay Saraf, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Rizwan Khan,, Shri
Adiya Garg, Shri Sandeep Kochatta and Shri Hemendra Jain learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Chabbra, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri
Akshat Pahadia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent no.1 to 3/State.
Shri Y.K. Mittal and Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
This batch of 43 writ petitions is before this Court at the instance of land owners allegedly falling under the Scheme No. 165 floated in the year 2006 and finalized in the year 2007 by the IDA.
Parcels of lands in these cases were initially part of a development scheme finalized in the year 1989 by the IDA. With the passage of time, it has elapsed. Thereafter, a new scheme was formulated and finalized in the year 2007 known as Scheme No. 165.
During the course of hearing, it has transpired that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984')was issued on 22.11.2011 and notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1984 was issued on 19.11.2012. Thereafter, award was passed on 14.11.2014 allegedly under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013[for short 'the 2013 Act']. However, neither possession has been taken from the petitioners nor compensation has been paid.
Shri Saraf, learned Sr. counsel leading the arguments submits that not Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/10/2019 16:43:51 2 WP-12137-2013 only mere parcels of lands, but also houses constructed thereupon have been sought to be included in the development scheme contrary to the provisions of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam & Niyam, 1973( for short 'the Act of 1973). Moreover, the alleged award is not in conformity with the provisions of the 2013 Act, particularly in the matter of computation and finalization of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 24 (1)(a) of the new Act of 2013.
Learned Sr. counsel further submits that in terms of Section 77 of 2013 Act, the Collector has neither tendered payment of compensation awarded by him to persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award including petitioners, nor deposited in their bank accounts. Admittedly, petitioners continued to be in possession of the lands.
Shri Mittal and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for IDA do not dispute the same.
Shri Saraf referring to the order passed by this Court on the last date of hearing i.e. 01.10.2019 submits that IDA in its latest communication to the State Government on 19.07.2019 has made it apt clear that total amount of compensation of Rs. 4125.30 crores for acquiring an area of 150.23 hectares shall be required and it shall not be possible for the IDA to raise loan for the huge equired amount for implementation of the scheme, unless the State Government makes available the determined amount of compensation.
It is further submitted that this Court had called upon the respondent/State to seek instructions from the State Government on the proposal of the IDA and cased have been posted today for orders. Unfortunately, there is no response from the State Government in that behalf. Therefore, this Court may proceed to hear the petitions on merit.
Shri Chabbra, learned Additional Advocate General passed on board and taken on record, the affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Dubey, Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal dated 14.10.2019 sworn purportedly in compliance of the order dated 01.10.2019.
Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/10/2019 16:43:513 WP-12137-2013 Before commenting upon the affidavit, it is considered apposite to observe that on 01.07.2019, this Court by a detailed order had sought response of the State Government on the proposal of the IDA forwarded to the State Government on 04.10.2018 as referred earlier. The affidavit dated 29.07.2019 was filed by the same officer stating on oath that a new policy is being formulated to address the questions involved in these writ petitions. The same shall help facilitate disposal of writ petitions. Thereafter on the next date of hearing i.e. on 01.10.2019, another affidavit of the same officer was shown during the course of hearing on 01.10.2019, but actually filed on 04.10.2019 whereunder, it is stated that the formulation of policy shall not be possible unless M.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 is amended and in para 5 and 6 of the of said affidavit, it is stated that draft amendment after consideration by Director, Town and Country Planning Department is sent to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. Whereafter, meeting was also held with the officials of Directorate of Town and Country planning on 23.09.2019 and eventually the draft amendment has been sent to the Minister, Urban Development and Housing for administrative approval on 24.09.2019.
This Court has carefully perused the affidavit passed on Board today and taken on record. The affidavit is said to be in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 01.10.2019. However, the same on its face is not in compliance of the order so passed on 01.10.2019 as there is no response to the proposal of the IDA dated 04.10.2018 and 19.07.2019 referred to in previous ordersheets(supra). The Officer appears to harbour a notion that he can afford to avoid compliance of the Court orders and keep on changing his stand by filing successive affidavits without understanding that such recourse adopted by him may invite serious action against him. Even in this affidavit, vague and evasive statements are made regarding the procedure to be adopted in the matter of carrying out amendment in the Act. In fact, it is even worst than the second affidavit whereunder he had disclosed a draft Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/10/2019 16:43:51 4 WP-12137-2013 amendment after due consultation with the Directorate, Town and Country Planning has been sent for administrative approval of the Minister, Town and Country Planning on 24.09.2019. From the demeanour of the Officer, it appears that there is no seriousness attached to the concern of the Court in the context of proposal of the Indore Development Authority. Hence, as prayed for by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, writ petitions are now posted for final disposal on a date to be agreed by the parties.
List this batch of cases on 14.11.2019 for final disposal, as jointly agreed to by the parties. A copy of the order be placed on the record of connected matters.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 18/10/2019 16:43:51