LAXMI NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MP
LAWS(MPH)-2010-2-32
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on February 23,2010

LAXMI NARAYAN MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Challenge in the writ appeals is to legality of the Order dated 8-4-2009 passed by the single Bench dismissing the writ petitions challenging the land acquisition for establishing Mega Cement Plant by M/s Bhilai J. P. Cement Ltd. Land which has been acquired is situated in village Sakariya and Birouhali of Tehsil -Raghurajnagar, District-Satna. Provision of Chapter VII were complied with and thereafter notification under section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9-7-2008.
(2.)For establishing a Mega Cement Plant with the production capacity of 2.2. million tones of cement per year, the land admeasuring 235.59 acres had been acquired. About 72.77 acres of land could not be purchased because of unwillingness of respective owners. The said land is situated in between the area already purchased by private negotiations by Company. Therefore, the State Govt, resorted to acquire the same under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. State Govt, wrote a letter (R-3/2) to the Collector on 27th December, 2007 pointing out the aforesaid fact that the Company had purchased 139.49 acres land by private negotiations out of 211.22 acres which was required. Remaining 76.22 acres of land could not be purchased as the land owners did not agree to sell their land to the Company. The propriety of land acquisition was ordered to be examined. Collector, in turn, wrote a letter (R-3/3) on 7-1-2008 to the SDO, Raghurajnagar, District-Satna sending a copy of the aforesaid letter (R-3/2) and to submit the report by 12-1-2008. The SDO directed Tehsildar, Raghurajnagar to collect the information and send the same. Collector wrote a letter (R-3/4) on 27-2-2008 to send the report by 1-3-2008 with respect to the land in question. Tehsildar, Raghurajnagar sent report (R-3/5) dated 1-3-2008 pointing out 19 aspects in the report. The inquest of spot inspection was prepared. The inquest indicated that land was situated in midst of the land purchased by M/s Bhilai JP Cement Ltd. and the land was useful to them, it was un-irrigated land, map of it also tallied and found to be correct, panchnama and the report were forwarded by the SDO to the Collector vide letter (R-3/6) on 1-3-2008. The Collector, called for the information from Deputy Director, Agriculturists Welfare and Agricultural Development, District-Satna who vide letter (R-3/8) dated 5-3-2008 written to the Collector intimated that land was cultivable and was fertile, department was not having any objection in acquisition of the land in case the agriculturists were not having any objection. Crux of the report was that department was not having any objection, however, the agriculturists had not agreed for sale as such the proceedings under Chapter Vll were initiated and report was called as envisaged under Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1963"). The Collector sent the report to the State Government vide letter (R-3/7) on 5-3-2008. After examining the report, the State Government wrote a letter (R-3/9) on 14-5-2008 for execution of the agreement under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter agreement was entered into between the State and the Company, and the State Government issued notification under section 4 and a declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under section 4 was issued on 30th June, 2008 and declaration under section 6 was issued on 8-8-2008. In the notification under section 4 the purpose for the acquisition was specified as acquisition for establishment of Mega Cement Plant of M/s Bhilai J. P. Cement Ltd. The writ petitions were preferred before the Single Bench assailing the acquisition of the land. Single Bench has dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ appeals have been preferred.
(3.)Shri Raghvendra Kumar and Shri Hitendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellants have submitted that acquisition could not be for a public purpose and for a company at the same time. Notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 suffers with illegality inasmuch as public purpose has been defined as acquisition for establishment of Mega Cement Plant of M/s Bhilai J. P. Cement Ltd., acquisition for a company could not be treated as a public purpose. Learned counsel have further submitted that Rule 4 of the Rules of 1963 has not been complied with in its pith and substance. Due enquiry was not held as contemplated into the various aspects envisaged under the aforesaid rule. The enquiry got conducted through Collector was merely an eye-wash, report of Tehsildar was obtained and it was forwarded to the State Government, therefore, it could not be said that the enquiry was made in terms of the Rule 4 of the Rules of 1963.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.