In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore emphasized the consolidation of multiple land acquisition appeals related to the same case. The court’s legal analysis focused on the need to hear all appeals together to prevent conflicting orders, marking a significant development in land acquisition cases.
Facts
- The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore dismissed the writ petition in Writ Appeal No 392 of 2009 through an order dated 18.09.2020.
- The appeal was preferred by the MP Housing Board and Anr. against the decision of the Division Bench favouring respondent Nos. 1 to 3 based on their purchase of land from Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore.
- Previous proceedings included the allowance of Letters Patent Appeal No 228 of 2001, dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal No.329 of 2004, and the eventual entitlement of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to the same relief as Gajanand Mali based on the decisions of the High Court.
- Gajanand Mali preferred Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2009 against a previous order.
- Objections were submitted by Gajanand Mali and Nandkishore along with other landowners.
- Gajanand Mali withdrew appeals with liberty to file Letters Patent Appeal.
- The Land Acquisition Officer rejected objections, leading Gajanand Mali to file Writ Petition No. 651 of 1995.
- A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 12.07.1994.
- Gajanand Mali and others filed Writ Petition No. 830 of 1997 challenging the notifications.
- The writ petition was dismissed by the learned judge, leading to an appeal to the higher court.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Decision
- The Division Bench of the High Court’s judgment dated 18.09.2020 in Writ Appeal No.392 of 2009 is quashed and set aside.
- The High Court did not consider that Writ Appeal No.447 of 2009 related to the same acquisition was pending before the High Court filed by Gajanand Mali, the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
- It was noted that all appeals concerning the same acquisition and challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 should be heard together to avoid conflicting orders.
- The matter is remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide Writ Appeal No. 392 of 2009 along with Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2009.
- The Division Bench is directed to decide the appeals within six months from the date of receipt of the present order.
- The present appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned, and there is no order as to costs. Pending applications are also disposed of.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Case Title: M.P. HOUSING BOARD Vs. SATISH KUMAR BATRA (2022 INSC 172)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001116-001116 / 2022
