Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
1 FA-1425-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1425 of 2023
KAPIL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Krishna Upadhyay - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rajendra Jain - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Sarwesh Singh Chauhan- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed against Award dated 27/02/2023 passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC No.22/2016.
2. I.A.No.3645/2026 has been filed for amendment.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
4. The amendment has been carried out by counsel for MPRDC in the Court itself after taking due permission.
5. I.A.No.3648/2026 has been filed seeking leave to file cross-objection on the ground that although, MPRDC was the necessary party, but neither it was impleaded as respondent, nor notice of reference was given either by Collector or by Reference Court.
6. I.A.No.3642/2026, an application has also been filed seeking exemption from filing an affidavit in support of an application for grant of leave to file cross objection.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 2 FA-1425-2023
7. Since it is the case of MPRDC that it was not impleaded as a party before the Reference Court, and that fact has not been disputed by counsel for appellants, therefore, requirement of filing an affidavit in support of application is hereby waived, and MPRDC is exempted from filing an affidavit in support of an application for grant of leave to file cross-objection.
8. Considered I.A. No.3648/2026 .
9. It is the case of MPRDC that being the beneficiary, it is a necessary party, and to buttress its contention, counsel for MPRDC has relied upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Road Development Corporation Vs. Jagannath and Others reported in 2021 (1) MPLJ 302.
10. Per contra , the cross-objection is vehemently opposed by counsel for appellants. However, in view of law laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath (supra) , it is fairly conceded that beneficiary of acquisition, i.e. MPRDC was a necessary party.
11. Accordingly, I.A.No. 3648/2026 is allowed and leave to file cross- objection is allowed.
12. In this appeal, appellants have paid the maximum Court fee of Rs.1,50,000/-. Similarly, cross-objection vide Document No.2598/2024 has been filed by respondent against the same Award on the ground that MPRDC was a necessary party being the beneficiary of the acquisition, but it was not impleaded.
13. Heard on merits.
14. It is fairly conceded by counsel for parties that this Court by a separate order passed in the case of Sunil Agrawal and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 3 FA-1425-2023 Others in F.A.No. 1423/2023 has accepted the claim of MPRDC and has held that MPRDC was the necessary party and has remanded the matter back to the Reference Court. It is submitted that the case in hand is duly covered by said order.
15. This Court in the case of Sunil Agrawal (supra) has held as under:-
"This appeal has been filed against Award dated 03/03/2023 passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC No.23/2016.
2. In this appeal, appellants have paid the maximum Court fee of Rs.1,50,000/-. Similarly, cross-objection vide Document No.6248/2024 has been filed by MPRDC, Bhopal against the same Award on the ground that MPRDC was a necessary party being the beneficiary of the acquisition, but it was not impleaded.
3. I.A.No.3652/2026 has been filed for amendment.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
5. The amendment has been carried out by counsel for MPRDC in the Court itself after taking due permission. 6 . I.A.No.3650/2026 has been filed seeking leave to file cross- objection on the ground that although, MPRDC was the necessary party, but neither it was impleaded as respondent, nor notice of reference was given either by Collector or by Reference Court.
7. I.A.No.3644/2026, an application has also been filed seeking exemption from filing an affidavit in support of an application for grant of leave to file cross-objection.
8. Since it is the case of MPRDC that it was not impleaded as a party before the Reference Court, and that fact has not been disputed by counsel for appellants, therefore, requirement of filing an affidavit in support of application is hereby waived, and MPRDC is exempted from filing an affidavit in support of an application for grant of leave to file cross-objection.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 4 FA-1425-2023
9. Considered I.A. No.3650/2026 .
10. It is the case of MPRDC that being the beneficiary, it is a necessary party, and to buttress its contention, counsel for MPRDC has relied upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Road Development Corporation Vs. Jagannath and Others reported in 2021 (1) MPLJ 302 .
11 . Per contra, the cross-objection is vehemently opposed by counsel for appellants. However, in view of law laid down by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath (supra) , it is fairly conceded that beneficiary of acquisition, i.e. MPRDC was a necessary party.
12. Accordingly, I.A.No. 3650/2026 is allowed, and MPRDC is permitted to file the cross-objection.
13. Heard on merits.
14. By the impugned award, the compensation amount has been enhanced, but being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation enhanced by the Reference Court, appellants have filed an appeal, whereas beneficiary of acquisition has filed a cross-objection on the ground that it was not impleaded and no notice was given either by Collector or by Reference Court.
15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath (supra) has held as under:-
"9. The issue relating to right of the local authority to participate at the stage of determination of compensation in the light of provisions contained in section 50 of the Act has been settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter o f U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326, it has been held that:-- "11. Thus, on an interpretation of the provisions of section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, it must be concluded that, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 5 FA-1425-2023 subject to the limitation contained in the proviso, a local authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to participate in the proceedings for acquisition before the Collector as well as the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and the said right imposes an obligation on the Collector as well as the reference Court to give a notice to the local authority with regard to the pendency of those proceedings and the date on which the matter of determination of amount of compensation would be taken up. The recognition of this right raises the question whether the local authority, feeling aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or the reference Court, can take recourse to any legal remedy. Before dealing with this question we would take note of the decisions of this Court have a bearing on the issue."
10. The view of the Constitution Bench is clear that the local authority for whom land is acquired, is entitled to participate in the proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and such local authority is also entitled to a notice from the Collector and reference Court at the stage of determination of the amount of compensation. The Constitution Bench in the above judgment has further taken note of section 50(2) of the Act and has held that:--
"20. In a case where no notice is given to the local authority the position of the local authority is not different from that of the Municipal Corporation in Neelgangabai v. State of Karnataka . In that case there was an express provision in section 20 of L.A. Act as modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extention Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for service of notice Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 6 FA-1425-2023 on the person or local authority for whom the acquisition is made. On a construction of Section 50(2) we have found that service of such a notice is implicit in the right conferred under section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, Since the failure to give a notice would result in denial of the right conferred on the local authority under section 50(2) it would be open to the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the award made by the Collector as was done in Neelgangabai case. In a case where notice has been served on the local authority and it has appeared before the Collector the local authority may feel aggrieved on account of it being denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence adduced by it having not been considered by the Collector while making the award or the award being vitiated by mala fides. Since the amount of the compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it has an interest in the determination of the said amount, which has been given recognition in section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, the local authority would be a person aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award in spite of the proviso precluding the local authority from seeking a reference. Such a challenge will, however, be limited to the grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a case where the local authority has failed to appear inspite of service of notice the local authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in such a case it may be permissible for the local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the award if it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 7 FA-1425-2023 vitiated by mala fides or is perverse."
11. The Constitution Bench has culled out the right of the local authority in this regard as under:--
"24. To sum up, our conclusions are:
1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending of the date on which the matter of determination of compensation will be taken up.
3. The proviso to section 50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A. Act.
4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226.
6. The local authority is a proper party in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 8 FA-1425-2023 proceedings before the reference Court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard.
7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by the reference Court if the Government does not file an appeal the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court.
8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court the local authority, the should be impleaded as a party and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court.
9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the same right as a local authority under section 50(2), whatever has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company too.
10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not be reopened."
12. In the matter of Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely , reported in (1995) 1 SCC 221 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that word "person interested"
comprehends the local authority or company for whose benefit land is acquired. Hence it is a proper party, if not necessary party, therefore it has a right to participate in the reference proceedings under section 18 or appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as also got the right to file a writ petition before the High Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 9 FA-1425-2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been held that the limited right to lead evidence under section 50(2) of the Act is available.
13. In the matter of Agra Development Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer , reported in (2001) 2 SCC 646, it has been held that where the land is acquired at the cost of the local development authority, then it is mandatory for the Land Acquisition Officer to issue notice to the said authority and give an opportunity to adduce evidence while determining the compensation amount.
14. In the matter of Kanak (Smt.) v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 693 it has again been reiterated that local authority for whose benefit the land is acquired or who is responsible for making payment of compensation, is required to be given notice by the Collector as well as Reference Court while determining compensation and the exceptions are that the authority should have knowledge of the proceedings or the authority has not suffered any prej udice on account of the failure to give notice. In the present case the authority had no knowledge of the reference proceedings or the appeal before this Court and that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner because the compensation amount has been enhanced in these proceedings.
15. In the matter of NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar , reported in (2004) 12 SCC 96 considering the nature of right of the authority on whose behalf land is acquired, it has been held that such authority has not only right to lead evidence but also has right to support the award made by the LAO by cross-examining the witnesses led by the claimants. In the matter of Regional Medical Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 10 FA-1425-2023 Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 125 considering the meaning of "local authority or company" as mentioned in section 50 of the Act, it has been held that the words include a statutory body on behalf of which land is acquired and it has further been held that such body should be impleaded and given notice in the proceedings before the reference Court. The Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma, reported in 2010 MPLJ Online (S.C.) 7 : (2011) 2 SCC 54 while considering the section 50(2) of the Act, has held that the object of the provision is to afford an opportunity to the local authority or company to participate in the proceedings for determination of compensation amount and to show that the claim made by the land owner for payment of compensation is legally untenable or unjustified, therefore, notice to the local authority is necessary. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and had remanded the matter back to the reference Court for deciding the reference by giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties including opportunity to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation.
16. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act and the order passed by this Court in First Appeal, without giving any notice to the petitioner and without the knowledge of the petitioner, suffers from patent illegality and the same cannot be sustained."
16. Thus, it is held that MPRDC being the beneficiary of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 11 FA-1425-2023 acquisition was a necessary party and should have been given an opportunity to present its case.
17. Since that valuable right was not extended to MPRDC, therefore, cross-objection filed by MPRDC is hereby allowed, and the award dated 03/03/2023 passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC No.23/2016 is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to decide the quantum of compensation afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to MPRDC also.
18. It is made clear that so far as the quantum of compensation, which was adjudicated by the Reference Court by the impugned award is concerned, the land owners have also filed their appeal therefore, appellants shall also be free to re-agitate about the quantum of compensation as desired by them, and in case if such a plea raised, then it shall be decided by the Reference Court without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the findings recorded in the impugned award.
19. Since matter has been remanded back on the ground of non- impleadment of necessary party and the case of appellants has not been considered on merits, therefore, Court fee paid by appellants is directed to be refunded, and if an application is filed by appellants for refund of Court fee, then the same shall be refunded and credited in the account of appellants.
20. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 14/05/2026 .
21. No fresh notice will be required to be issued to MPRDC.
22. In case if MPRDC fails to appear on 14/05/2026, then it shall be presumed that it has nothing to say in the matter, and the Reference Court shall be free to decide the matter afresh after proceeding ex-parte against MPRDC.
23. Since acquisition was done in the year 2011, therefore, the Reference Court shall try to conclude the reference proceedings within a period of nine months from 14/05/2026.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577 12 FA-1425-2023
24. With aforesaid observation, this first appeal is finally disposed of."
16. Since a cross-objection has been filed by beneficiary and in view of remand made by this Court without considering the grounds raised in memo of appeal, therefore, it is directed that land owner shall be free to re-agitate about the quantum of compensation desired by them, and in case if such a plea is raised, then it shall be decided by the Reference Court without getting influenced or prejudiced any of the findings recorded in the impugned award.
17. Accordingly, this appeal is also disposed of in the terms and conditions of the order passed in the case of Sunil Agrawal (supra), and Award dated 27/02/2023 passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC No.22/2016 is hereby set aside .
18. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 14/05/2026.
19. No fresh notice will be required to be issued to MPRDC.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE PjS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE BARAIYA Signing time: 4/23/2026 03:49:30 PM