Laali Devi Tomar vs State of M.P.

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:-

1) The present petition may kindly be allowed; and

2) A writ of mandamus in the nature of direction/order may kindly be issued against respondents to not to interfere into the plot belonging to the petitioner detailed hereinabove; and/or,

3) Any other relief which this Hon''ble court deems fit in the attending facts & circumstances may also be granted.

Subsequently, the petition was amended by way of amendment application (I.A. No. 1897/2014) and the petitioner added following reliefs:

4(a) The respondent authorities be directed to restore possession of the plot of the petitioner which forms part of Survey No. 750 situated at Village Mehra admeasuring 1800 sq. ft. owned by the petitioner.

Or

In the alternative the respondent authorities be directed to grant compensation to the petitioner by initiating Land Acquisition proceedings under the Act of 2013 keeping in view the provision contained therein and be also directed for rehabilitation and resettlement scheme under the Act of 2013 for petitioner.

Exemplary cost be also imposed upon respondent authorities as the petitioner''s fundamental right under Article 21 & so also right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India have been violated by executing action of the State alongwith the damages for demolition of boundary wall amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-.

As per the petitioner, she purchased a plot area 1800 sq. ft. from one Smt. Sangeeta Rathore vide registered sale deed dt. 3.6.2008 of the land situated at village Mehra, Patwari Halka No. 042. The local administration and Municipal Corporation implemented a projected in regard to laying of road of 60 ft. width connecting the four Lane to the bypass from Huravali intersection to Sachin Tendulkar Marg. The petitioner had a fear that her land be taken over for the purpose of construction of road, hence, she filed a writ petition before this court, which was registered as W.P. No. 1823/2013. The State filed reply in the aforesaid petition that the land of the petitioner was not acquired for the purpose of construction of road.

On such pleading, this court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dt. 1.5.2013 with the following directions:-

Since the respondents No. 1 & 2 - State in its reply categorically pleaded that they are not going to construct any road over the land of survey No. 750 and the petitioner has claimed her ownership over the part of the land of survey No. 750, hence, in our opinion, the writ petition has become infructuous because no road is going to be constructed over the land of survey No. 750.

The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Subsequently, the authorities tried to construct the road on the land of the petitioner and other persons, hence, the petitioner filed the present petition. During the pendency of the petition, the road has been constructed.

The petitioner pleaded that the respondents had taken forceful possession of the land of the petitioner without any process of law, hence, it is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner prayed a relief that the possession of the petitioner be restored and the respondents be directed to award proper compensation to the petitioner.

The State has filed an application (I.A. No. 1730/2014) for dismissing the Writ Petition. It is mentioned in the application that the petitioner herself submitted an application to the Collector that she was willing to give her land for the purpose of construction of road if in exchange another land be allotted to her. She further pleaded that she had seen the alternate land of Village Sirol of survey No. 429 and if the parcel of the land be allotted to her, then she would be satisfied. Consequently, the Collector allotted the alternate land to the petitioner. Copy of the application submitted by the petitioner to the Collector has been filed as Annexure R/4. It is dated 10.1.2014 and thereafter the Collector passed the order on 16.12.2013 on the enquiry report of the Tahsildar

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner admitted the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application, however, the learned senior advocate further submitted that the State authorities applied force on the petitioner and under duress the petitioner submitted an application along with other persons. There was no free consent of the petitioner.

Learned senior counsel further argued that the action of the respondents taking possession of the land of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and it is against the provisions of Revenue Book Circular, which provides for procedure of exchange of land also the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to ''Act of 2013''). He further contended that the petitioner is eligible to get compensation in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2013 and the order passed by the Collector in regard to exchange of land is null and void. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments:-

(i) Nagar Parishad Vs. State of M.P. and Others, .

(ii) Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others thr. Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. and Others, .

(iii) Pratap Wahini Samaj Kalyan Sansthan Vs. State of M.P. and Others,

(iv) Banwarilal Gupta and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, .

(v) The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Jaipur and Others,

(vi) National Council for Teacher Education and Another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and Others, .

(vii) Pancham Chand and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,

(viii) V.C., Banaras Hindu University and Others Vs. Shrikant,

(ix) K. Sai Reddy and others Vs. Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Command Area Development, Nampally, Hyderabad and others,

In the present case, it is a fact that the petitioner herself submitted an application for allotment of alternate land and on the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner, the Collector passed the order and the land has been allotted to the petitioner. Her name has also been recorded in the revenue record. Whether the petitioner submitted an application under duress or force or voluntarily, that fact could not be decided in this petition because the petition was filed on 16.12.2013 and the court passed the following interim order :-

Heard on interim relief. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of the land and the respondent No. 2 & 3 are constructing four lane road over the land of the petitioner.

If it is found that the any construction of road has been made by the respondents over the land of the petitioner then this Court shall award appropriate compensation to the petitioner and the concerned Organization shall be liable to pay compensation.

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed an application for amendment, which is registered as I.A. No. 1897/2014. Alongwith this IA, the petitioner filed certain documents, however, the petitioner did not file the application, which was submitted by her before the Collector on 10.1.2014, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure R/4 and the order passed by the Collector was also not filed. The application for amendment was filed on 10.3.2014 after submitting the application before the Collector because it was submitted on 10.1.2014, hence, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts. Apart from this, it is cardinal principle of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution that the writ court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the principle of acquiescence because it is an equitable relief. Prima facie in the present case, in our opinion, the petitioner has acquiesced with the respondents after filing the application. In such circumstances, prima facie, in our opinion, it would not be proper for this court to exercise the writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner in regard to grant of compensation, however, this court has prima facie feel that the respondents had taken the land of the petitioner without due process of law. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner can file appropriate proceeding for grant of compensation under the Act of 2013 or she can file a civil suit.

With the aforesaid observation, Writ Petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.