SURJIT SINGH SAHANI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-2018-1-372
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on January 09,2018

Surjit Singh Sahani Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Madhya Pradesh, And Others Respondents




JUDGEMENT

ROHIT ARYA, J. - (1.)The Ujjain Development Authority (For short, 'the UDA') pursuant to the resolution of the Board of Directors dated 21/06/1990 proposed a scheme No. P-8/90 in villages Goyalkurd, Malanwasa and Shakkarwasa. Thereafter, as contemplated under section 50(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (For short, 'the Adhiniyam, 1973') publication of the scheme was made in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette Part 3(1) on 14/12/1990. After finalization of the scheme, the same was published under section 50(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 27/11/1992.
The scheme having total area of land admeasuring 126 hectares was spread over in three phases; Goyalkurd, Malanwasa and Shakkarwasa.

Phase I: Goyalkurd: Total land owners 34:

The proposal for acquisition of land in village Goyalkurd has been registered as case No. 1 A82/98-99 on 20/06/1997.

A notification dated 04/08/1998 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, 'the Act of 1894') was published on 11/09/1998 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette.

Notices were issued to the land owners on 23/12/1998 by the concerned Tahsildar.

After deciding the objections under section 5A by the Collector, Ujjain on 30/08/1999, notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published on 10/09/1999 in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette.

Thereafter, notice under section 9 thereof was issued on 12/09/1999.

Objections were submitted by fourteen land owners including the petitioner. The same were replied by LAO on 15/03/2000.

Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award after deciding the objections, for an amount of Rs. 2,90,64,541/- on 7/9/2001. Thereafter, notices under section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 were issued to total 34 land owners, calling upon them to submit the proof of no dues from Tahsildar, No Objection Certificate from the competent Authroity under Urban Land Ceiling, Ujjain; that the land is exempt from ceiling and there is no title dispute. Therefore, only such interested persons were entitled for compensation. The aforesaid conditions were required to be fulfilled in the light of the notification of revenue department dated 01/11/1990 as available in the original record which reads as under:

...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

34 land owners were offered compensation.

It appears that the land owners have applied for obtaining NOC from the competent authority. The competent authority issued NOCs on the basis of available record and upon furnishing such NOCs to the Land Acquisition Officer, 30 farmers have received compensation.

Four farmers did come forward to obtain NOC or to apply for compensation. Out of these four land owners, two land owners, namely; Jaswant Kumar and Vilas Jain W/o Mahesh remained unidentified. Other two land owners, viz., Surjeet Singh (present petitioner) and Keshav Kishore did submit NOCs from the competent authority instead preferred reference under section 18 of the Act of 1894.

There were total 10 ceiling cases registered; out of which Ceiling Case No. 166 x 6/76-77 was registered in respect of four persons, viz.,(1) Surjeet Singh s/o Harman Singh (2) Rameshwar s/o Dhannalal (3) Bahadur Singh and others (4) Mayaram s/o Thavarji; legal heir Ratan Singh s/o Mayaram as he represented Mayaram at a later stage.

Out of the above mentioned land owners, three land owners, namely; Rameshwar, Bahadur Singh and Mayaram through legal heir Ratan Singh have approached the competent ceiling authority for obtaining NOCs, on 12/02/2002, 12/02/2002 and 12/09/2003 respectively. As such upon fulfillment of conditions stipulated; they have received compensation, as detailed below:
JUDGEMENT_372_LAWS(MPH)1_2018_1.html
Petitioner never submitted NOC from the competent authority.

The Ujjain Development Authority deposited the entire amount of compensation through cheques on different dates viz. 24/9/2001, 3/10/2001, 29/10/2001, 24/11/2001 and 27/11/2001.

Thereafter, Tahsildar directed the Revenue Inspector for taking over the possession from the land owners including the petitioner on 26/12/2001. Notice was issued from the Office of Revenue Inspector, Circle-II, Ujjain to petitioner on 5/1/2002, who received the same on 14/1/2002 [Anenexure-R/3(1)]. The entire area of land falling in Phase I of the scheme was taken possession of during 16/1/2002 to 17/1/2002 from the land owners and the possession of petitioner's land was taken over on 17/1/2002 vide Annexure-R/3-2 in the presence of Panchas by the Revenue Inspector and the Land Acquisition Officer and delivered to Ujjain Development Authority.

On 11/11/2002, petitioner filed an application under section 18 of the Act of 1894 for reference to the Court. The reference Court decided the case on 31/1/2005 rejecting the claim for enhancement of compensation with a finding in paragraph 3 relating to acceptance of compensation under protest and delivery of possession. Since 31/1/2005 till the date of filing of instant petition on 8/2/2016, for almost 11 years, no proceedings of any nature were ever initiated by the petitioner either questioning the Award or order of reference Court or the act of land acquisition.

PHASE II : Malanwasa: Total land owners: 43

The compensation was offered to 43 land owners. Out of them, 35 have accepted the compensation and in respect of 1 land owner, case is pending before the Commissioner. Another person is eligible for compensation as he was found to be in possession of Government land and for remaining 6 land owners, information is available in the record.

PHASE III: Malanwasa and Shakkarwasa. Total land owners: 24 + 7 = 30.

In Village Malanwasa, all the 24 land owners have accepted the compensation and in Village Shakkarwasa, out of 7, 6 have accepted the compensation, while the remaining one was found eligible to receive compensation being in possession of Government land and the amount of compensation was deposited in the Collectorate.

None of the land owners in aforementioned three phases of the UDA schemes have questioned the land acquisition proceedings or any proceedings till date.

(2.)The UDA after following the procedure sought diversion of land and after sanctioning of layout by the Town and Country Planning Department developed the land. Divided it into hundreds of plots and transferred the same by way of lease/sale through auction/NIT. One such plot admeasuring 1337.65 sq.meters was also transferred to respondent no. 3 by execution of lease in his favour vide registered lease deed dated 15/12/2015 (Annexure A/3). The said plot was declared freehold in the year 2016. The respondent No.4 has transferred the said plot in favour of respondent No. 5 by a registered sale deed dated 21/10/2016 for a consideration of Rs. 4,46,34,854/- (page No. 246 of the paper book). Thereafter, physical possession was received by respondent No. 5. After developing the plot, commercial complex was constructed with sanctioned map known as D-Mart.
(3.)The respondent No. 5 added as respondent vide I.A.No. 6271/2016 which was allowed by this Court on 07/12/2016.
;


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