SHUSHILA BAI & 6 OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & 4 OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-92
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on December 05,2017

Shushila Bai And 6 Others Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Madhya Pradesh And 4 Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BIMLA DEVI VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VERSUS SUKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PARASRAM PAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIV RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. VINOD OIL AND GENERAL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
VELAXAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KARNAIL KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RADIANCE FINCAP (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [REFERRED TO]
SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM LAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH NEEMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VS. MANAV DHARAM TRUST AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

J. K. Maheshwari, J. - (1.)The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) to call entire record pertaining to the land acquisition of the petitioners land situated at Mirjapur, Tahsil and District Vidisha.

(ii) to hold the land acquisition proceedings of land acquired for Krishi Upaj Mandi, Vidisha be lapsed in the light of Section 24(2) and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(iii) to consequently quash the land acquisition proceedings, acquiring the land of petitioners for establishment of Krishi Upaj Mandi Vidisha; and or

(iv) in the alternative direct the respondent authorities to pay the compensation in accordance with the new Act of 2013.

(v) to grant any other relief deemed fit or the petitioners be found entitled to in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience along with costs of litigation."

(2.)The facts of the case are that the petitioners were the owners of the land of different Khasra bearing Nos.22,23,24,25,30,31/1,31/2 situated at Village Mirjapur of Tahsil and District Vidisha and it would reveal from the following chart:- JUDGEMENT_92_LAWS(MPH)12_2017_1.html
(3.)The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Old Land Acquisition Act") was issued on 15.12.1995 and the final notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 10.1.1996 by which the total land of the petitioners pertaining to the chart of the said Khasra numbers of the total area 20.210 hectare situated at Village Mirjapur, Tahsil and District Vidisha was acquisitioned. The final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Vidisha on 16.8.1999 vide Annexure R/1 determining the compensation to the land holders. It is also not in dispute that Civil Suit No.7A/1999 was filed by the land owner Dev Kunwar Ben Shah (petitioner No.2 herein) seeking the declaration that the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the old Land Acquisition Act are not valid and the same may be set aside and she be declared the owner of the said land. The said civil suit was dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Vidisha vide judgment dated 28.4.2000 Annexure P/4 against which First Appeal No.143/2000 was preferred that too was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 6.5.2005 holding that the Civil Court do not have the jurisdiction to entertain such suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.2 has preferred S.L.P. No.18763/2005 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner No.2 filed a Writ Petition No.1523/2006 challenging the land acquisition made by the respondents on various grounds. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2007 against which Writ Appeal No.628/2007 preferred was dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2008. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the order dated 10.1.2008 was also dismissed on 11.7.2008. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.6389/2011 was filed by petitioner No.2 contending interalia that the forcible possession may not be taken from her. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2011 with a direction to decide the question of possession by the competent authority. However, after passing the order by the Collector, District Vidisha on 23.11.2011, Writ Petition No.8060/2011 was filed by the petitioner No.2 challenging the same and also restraining the defendants to not to take forcible possession from her, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2012. Against the said order, S.L.P No.18633/2012 was preferred and the same was also dismiseed vide order dated 13.7.2012. Thereafter, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Right to Fair Compensation Act") has come into force with effect from 1.1.2014. However, taking the pretext of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act seeking appropriate directions of lapsing of the proceedings of the land acquisition to which the compensation was not paid, this petition has been preferred alongwith other reliefs.
;


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