INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
LAWS(SC)-2017-12-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 07,2017

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs. And Ors. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Arun Mishra, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The question arises whether by virtue of the provisions contained in section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"), the proceedings lapsed in the instant case.
(3.)The facts in short are that the Indore Development Authority (for short, "the IDA") established under section 38 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "the Adhiniyam of 1973") prepared a Master Plan which came into force on 21.1995, formulated scheme Nos.124(A) and (B) under section 50(1) of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and decided to acquire land for the purpose of constructing Ring Road and Link Road on the outskirts of Indore city. The ring road has been fully constructed. The land was acquired for the purpose of constructing Link Road, for joining the major road to the Ring Road under Scheme 124(B). Possession of the land is stated to be with the encroachers and not with the landowners. The compensation was deposited by the IDA with the Land Acquisition Collector. The landowners were informed to collect it but they had refused and did not receive the compensation. The IDA published the schemes as per the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 197 On 6.2.1991, a prayer was made to the Collector to acquire the land and on 2.1994 compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. Notification under section 4 was issued on 212.1994. Section 17(1) was also invoked. Enquiry under section 5A was dispensed with. Declaration under section 6 was published on 17.1995 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"). Respondent No.1 - owner filed objections before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation of Rs. 32,50,000/-. Award was passed by the LAO on 14.1997 and the sum awarded to respondent No.1 was Rs. 7,90,813/-. A belated W.P. No.1182 of 1997 was filed for quashing the acquisition proceedings. It was allowed on 28.8.1998 holding that the scheme lapsed on expiry of three years. Enquiry under section 5A was illegally dispensed with. Letters Patent Appeal No.480 of 1998 was preferred before the Division Bench and on 29.1.2000 an order of status quo was passed. The LPA was dismissed as not maintainable. However this Court remitted the matter to the High Court to file writ appeal under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. On 4.4.2007 the High Court directed maintenance of status quo.
;


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