VISHNU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(MPH)-2021-3-42
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 26,2021

VISHNU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sujoy Paul,J. - (1.) In these batch of Writ Appeals challenge is made to the common order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.3250/2017 and other connected matters decided on 2nd November, 2020 whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants were dismissed. It was held that land acquisition proceedings have not at all lapsed, even if the petitioners have not received the compensation. A specific finding was given in the impugned order that in the present cases, compensation was deposited with the land acquisition officer and the question of granting relief to the petitioners, especially in the light of the fact that entire project is complete does not arise. The liberty was reserved to the petitioners to receive compensation in accordance with law if not received so far.
(2.) Shri K.L. Hardia, learned counsel for appellants contended that notification u/S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "Act of 1894") was defective. The said notification was issued on 16/2/2007 whereas notification u/S.6 of the said Act was issued on 9/2/2007. By no stretch of imagination, Sec.4 Notification can be issued after issuance of Sec.6 notification. The award passed on 7/3/2009 is liable to be interfered with on this score alone.
(3.) It is noteworthy that this matter was heard for quite some time on 18/3/2021. Because of paucity of time, to conclude the hearing, with the consent of parties, matter was taken up on 22/3/2021. An amendment application IA No.2749/2021 was filed by Shri Hardia seeking amendment at appellate stage. We are not inclined to entertain amendment application filed at the midst of hearing. More so when the facts and pleadings mentioned in the amendment application are based on factual matrix which were already known to the present appellants during writ proceedings. The appellants did not file amendment application before the writ court and filed this application at appellate stage. In absence of showing any "due diligence" for not filing application at appropriate stage, we find no reason to entertain this application.;


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