Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – ss. 50 and 54 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 5A and 6 – Indore Development Authority (IDA) passed a resolution u/s.50 of Act, 1973, declaring its intention to frame a residential scheme providing for other connected land uses – IDA published the said scheme – State Government by order delegated its power to the District Collector to act as Under Secretary – IDA started mutual negotiations with the landowners for procurement of their land for the scheme – Mutual negotiations failed – IDA moved the Collector for acquisition of the land – Notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act was published, and report u/s.5A of the 1894 Act was filed before the Collector for approval – Declaration u/s.6 was published – In year 1997, some lands were released from scheme – The notifications u/s.4 and s.6 of the 1894 Act was challenged before the Single Judge of the High Court, which in turn quashed the scheme framed by the IDA (on the ground that the same had lapsed in view of s.54 of the 1973 Act) as well as the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government – The IDA preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court, which confirmed the order of the Single Judge – On appeal, held: Within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and thereafter approaching the State Government to acquire the land, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed – High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while interpreting s.54 of 1973 Act – Further held, merely because s.5A has not been mentioned in the order of State Government delegating its power, the entire acquisition proceedings cannot be declared illegal – When the Collector has exercised the power of the appropriate Government and a declaration u/s.6 has been issued after considering the report on the objections u/s.5A, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing the entire acquisition proceedings – Also, it cannot be said that the release of the land was arbitrary and/or with an object of undue favour to those persons whose lands have been released – Release of the land which according to the authority was for valid reasons or valid grounds has not prejudiced or affected the integrity of the scheme – As the integrity of the scheme remains the same, thus, the finding of High Court is unsustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed under section
54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while interpreting and/or considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam. [Para 11][113-G-H]
2. So far as quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings including sections 4 & 6 notifications issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the lands in question on the ground that there was no proper delegation of power to the Collector with regard to Section 5A of the Act, is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the State Government vide its letter dated 22.3.1985 delegated its power to the District Collector as Deputy Secretary of the Revenue Department and to the Commissioner of the division to act as Secretary of the Revenue Department and to adjudicate matters related to land acquisition by exercising powers given under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894. Merely because Section 5A has not been mentioned in the said order, the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and more particularly the declaration which was issued after considering the report/objections under section 5A cannot be declared illegal. [Para 12][114-B-D]
3. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 could be issued only after the report submitted under Section 5A has been considered by the appropriate government. Under Section 5A of the Act, the objections are required to be considered by the Collector, i.e., the Collector of a District including a Deputy Commissioner and any other officer especially appointed by the appropriate government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. 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 under Section 5A is the Collector of a District. Even the State Government vide its circular dated 6.03.1987 conf erred power on the Deputy Collectors for exercising the functions of the Collector for acquisition of the land in their respective areas. [Para 12.1][114-D-F]
4. When the Collector has exercised the power of the appropriate government and a declaration under section 6 of the Act has been issued after considering the report on the objections under Section 5A of the Act, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground. [Para 12.3][116-F]
5. So far as the third ground on which the scheme and the entire acquisition proceedings have been set aside, namely, the huge and big chunk of land out of the total land sought to be acquired by the Development Authority which has been released, is concerned, it is required to be noted that out of the total land acquired, 68.11% of the land has been developed and 31.89% has not been developed due to interim orders passed by the Courts. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that out of the total land covered under the scheme, i.e., 332.616 hectares (277.853 hectares of land acquired through award plus 44.763 hectares of the land owned by the Authority), land has been released for various purposes to the extent of 54.660 hectares and still the remaining land would be to the extent of 267.956 hectares out of which the land involved in the present appeals would be to the extent of 85.430 hectares. According to the Development Authority, 111.156 hectares of the land covered under the scheme was released in favour of Housing Cooperative Societies because the object of the housing societies and the scheme was the same. According to the Development Authority, the Authority/State Government had released the land only of those societies who had either developed or started development of colonies or had acquired the title to the land or had obtained exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 before publication of the final scheme under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam. According to the Development Authority, 104.524 hectares of land covered under the scheme which was released from the scheme, the land use of the said land was either agricultural or regional park. Release of the land having area of 46.116 hectares of land was in response to objections under section 5A of the Act because of certain reasons like existing houses, religious places, different land use etc. [Para 13][116-G-H; 117-A-D]
6. It cannot be said that the release of the land was arbitrary and/or with an object of undue favour to those persons whose lands have been released. As rightly submitted that even otherwise such lands were to be acquired for residential, park and industrial purposes, release of the land which according to the authority was for valid reasons or valid grounds has not prejudiced or affected the integrity of the scheme. The end result of the release of some land is that the total area of the scheme is lesser to that extent but the integrity of the scheme remains the same. At this stage, it is required to be noted that some of the lands have already been used by the authority for the purpose of a park which is used for the benefit of local people. Under the circumstances, the third ground on which the scheme and the entire acquisition proceedings have been quashed by the High Court does not stand on its legs and the said finding is unsustainable. [Para 13.1][117-E-G]
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur (2013) 5 SCC 427 : [2013] 4 SCR 978; Union of India v. Bal Ram Singh (1992) 2 Supp SCC 136; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 7 SCC 545; Jagdish Chand v. State of Haryana (2005) 10 SCC 162; Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2009) 2 SCC
397 : [2008] 17 SCR 564 – referred to.
Sanjay Gandhi Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha
Maryadit v. State of M.P. & Others AIR 1991 MP 72; Adarsh Nagar Grih Nirman Sahkari Sansthan
Maryadit, Bhopal v. State of M.P. and Others 2004 (1) M.P.L.J. 539 : 2003 SCC OnLine MP 329 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.