And Anr Vs. State of M.P. & Ors  Insc 519 (23 August 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6509 of 2002) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
the M.P. High Court, Jabalpur dismissing appellants Letters
Patent Appeal by order dated 7.11.2001. By the said order, the Division Bench
dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal directed against order of learned Single
Judge dated 23.8.2001 dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant.
had challenged notification issued under Section 4 and declaration under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') and the
subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The writ application
was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and also on the ground that the
award had already been passed. The Division Bench concurred with the view
expressed by Learned Single Judge.
counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court should not have
considered the writ petition to be belated. In fact, a suit was filed in the
year 1990 immediately after notification was issued under Section 4 and
declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16.9.1987 and 6.12.1988 respectively.
The suit was held to be not maintainable by learned Civil Judge, Indore on 16.3.2001.
the writ petition was filed.
response, learned counsel for the respondent- State of M.P. and its functionaries and
the Indore Development Authority (in short the 'Authority') supported the order
of learned Single Judge and the appellate judgment.
dates need to be noted for dealing with the rival contentions. The Authority
passed a resolution on 13.3.1981 to frame scheme under Section 50(1) of M.P. Nagar
Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the 'Adhiniyam'). The scheme was
finally published in terms of Section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam on 1.5.1984.
Certain additional lands were included in the scheme on 22.6.1984.
under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 16.9.1987, while the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.12.1988. The civil suit was filed on
6.9.1990 challenging the scheme, the notification and the declaration.
statement was filed stating that the suit was not maintainable. Certain
landowners whose lands were acquired challenged the notification under Sections
4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act and subsequent award passed. The
High Court quashed the proceedings and the award; but clarified that the said
order would be applicable only to those who had approached the High Court and
not to others. By order dated 16.3.2001 learned Single Judge accepted the
primary objections raised regarding maintainability and jurisdiction of Civil Court and held that the suit was not
maintainable. On 20.7.2001 the writ petition was filed for quashing the
notification, declaration, scheme as also the award which had been published on
08.06.2001. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there
was gross delay in approaching the Court. As noted above in the Letters Patent
Appeal filed before the High Court, view of learned Single Judge was
not in dispute that right from the beginning the State Government and the
Authority were taking the stand that the suit was not maintainable.
State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors. (1995
(4) SCC 229), this Court had observed that Civil Suit was not maintainable and
the remedy to question notification under Sections 4 and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was by filing a writ petition. Even thereafter the
appellant, as noted above, pursued the suit in the Civil Court. The stand that five years after
the filing of the suit, the decision was rendered does not in any way help the
appellant. Even after the decision of this Court, the appellant continued to
prosecute the suit till 2001, when the decision of this Court in 1995 had held
that suit was not maintainable.
being so, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were justified in
holding that the writ petition was highly belated.
find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the
Division Bench to warrant interference.
appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.