REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No 5071 of 2022 Indore Development Authority… Appellant Versus Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar and Others… Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5097 OF 2022 CIVIL APPEAL NO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal No 873 of 2008 and other connected writ appeals, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals, confirming the common judgment and order dated 10.12.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single allowed the respective writ petitions against finalisation of Scheme No 97 under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Adhiniyam’)
The subsequent land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1894’), the Indore Development Authority has preferred the present appeals. After completing various formalities, the IDA published Scheme No 97 on 08.06.1984 as required under Section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam and the Scheme was also published in the Official Gazette on the said date. Since the mutual negotiations failed, the IDA vide its letter dated 4.06.1987 moved the Collector for acquisition of the land. 3
The Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer filed its report under section 5A of the Act, 1894 before the Collector for approval and also submitted the notification under section 6 of the Act, 1894 for signature of the Collector. 5
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
After the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act, 1894 and during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings before the Collector, some of the landowners whose lands were acquired for Scheme No 97 filed writ petitions before the High Court and obtained interim orders against dispossession of their land.
6 The learned Single Judge by a common judgment and order dated 10.12.19998 allowed the respective writ petitions and quashed the Scheme framed by the IDA as well as the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government, mainly on three grounds, namely,:- (i) The objections invited under Section 5-A of the L.A. 7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings as well as quashing and setting aside Scheme No 97 on the ground that the same had lapsed in view of Section 54 of the Adhiniyam, the IDA preferred the writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. 1
It is further submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions declaring Scheme No 97 as illegal and invalid and quashed and set aside the entire acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894, mainly on three grounds, namely:- (i) That there was no delegation of power by the State Government with regard to Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to Collector; (ii) That IDA failed to take substantial steps to implement the scheme within a period of three years from the date of final publication as envisaged under section 54 of the Adhiniyam; and (iii) That huge and big chunk of land, out of the total land sought to be acquired by the Authority, has been released.
2 Insofar as the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, as confirmed by the Division Bench, that there was no delegation of power to the Collector with respect to Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 is concerned, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted as under: (i) That Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 provides for inviting and hearing of objections from the landowners by the appropriate authority and then preparation of report thereof. A bare reading of Sections 4 to 6 of the Act, 1894 would reveal that the power given to the District Collector and to the Commissioner under these sections are consequential and cannot be separated inasmuch as one section leads to another, which finally culminates in the passing of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act.” 3 It is contended that in the present case, apart from being specially appointed by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector, the Authority who has considered the objections u/s 5-A is the Collector of a District.
5 It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no delegation of power by the State Government with regard to Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to the Collector. It is next submitted that in the present case declaration of intention to prepare a town development scheme under section 50(1) was issued on 13.03.1981; publication of the said declaration under Section 50(2) was carried out on 10.07.1981; final development scheme was published in the Official Gazette under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam on 08.06.1984; the State Government was requested to acquire the land on 4.06.1987, i.e., within three years of the final publication. 15.04.1987 No obtained by the Town & Country Planning Department 04.06.1987 Since Negotiation failed, State Govt. It is submitted that the only reasonable interpretation of Section 54 would be that some steps should be taken by the Authority for implementation of the scheme and must have an intention to implement the scheme.
56, 57 and 58 of the Adhiniyam and has taken a view that the words ‘fails to implement’ would means failure to take any substantial steps for the implementation of the scheme and if no such step is taken within three years the scheme will lapse…” It is submitted that therefore the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court have materially erred in declaring the scheme as having lapsed on the ground of non-implementation of the scheme under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam. As regards the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on hostile discrimination and quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that a huge and big chunk of land, out of the total land, has been released and therefore to continue with the acquisition with respect to rest of the land is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have not properly appreciated the grounds on which the lands were released. 13
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
It is submitted that as such in the present case the IDA filed a clarification giving reasons regarding land released out of Scheme No.
had released the land only of those societies who had either developed or started development of colony or had acquired the title to the land or had obtained exemption u/s 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 before publication of final scheme u/s 50 (7) of the Adhiniyam. Release of land having area 46.116 hectors – Aforesaid land was released by the Land Acquisition Officer while considering the objections u/s 5-A of the Act because of certain reasons like existing houses, religious places, different land use etc., 3.15 It is further submitted by Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG that in the present case some of the lands have been acquired and in fact used for the park. Mody, learned Senior Advocates, Shri Puneet Jain and Shri Mayank Kshirsagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original writ petitioners. 1 Shri Punit Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective contesting respondents in Civil Appeal No.5099/2022 @ SLP No. (iii) That there was no delegation of the power of the State Government under section 5A to the Commissioner and hence, the decision for acquisition of land under section 5A is not by a proper authority. It is submitted that in any case, the word “implement” ought to be understood to mean “substantial implementation.” 5 It is submitted that in the present case, the learned Single Judge did not accept the narrow view and proceeded to test the actions of the IDA on the “substantial implementation” principle.
7 It is further contended with regard to Section 54 on non- implementation of the scheme as under: – (a) That Section 54 must be understood as the time-cap for the restriction provided in section 53. Acquisition of land – (1) For the purpose of land acquisition under section 56 of the Act, the land shall be in the Town and Country Development Authority subject to the following terms and conditions namely:- (i)
Case Title: INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS INCHARGE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THROUGH GPA HOLDER Vs. BURHANI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT SNEH NAGAR THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MOHD. HUSSAIN S/O SH (2023 INSC 200)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005071-005071 / 2022
