M.P. Housing Board vs State of M.P.

In this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge is made to an order passed by the learned Writ Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner M. P. Housing Board.

It is seen that for acquisition of land on behalf of M. P. Housing Board, acquisition proceedings have been held under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 and compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,89,516/- was determined.

It was the grievance of the Housing Board before the Writ Court that the award has been passed without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to them as is required under Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Placing reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., , it was tried to be canvassed that without grant of opportunity and without determination of compensation as the award is passed, the same is unsustainable.

The learned Writ Court examined the ground in the light of the law laid down in the case of Gyan Devi (supra) and recorded a specific finding that the Board was given an opportunity to appear before the competent authority and a specific finding is recorded by the learned Writ Court which goes to show that the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act has not been violated and the housing Board was granted an opportunity and, therefore, the writ petition has been dismissed.

Now, placing reliance on the same judgment in the case of Gyan Devi (supra) and another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Agra Development Authority Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others, , Shri R. K. Samaiya tried to argue that except for permitting the officer of the Housing Board to be present at the time of spot inspection, no further opportunity was granted to lead evidence and, therefore, he say that there is a violation of the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Act.

Shri Rahul Jain invites our attention to the findings recorded by the learned Writ Court from para 10 onwards and argued that the proceedings were held before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appearance of the appellant on various dates i.e. on 4.01.02, 25.02.02, 21.05.02 and 1.06.02 and further stated that the requirements of Section 50(2) have been complied and, there is no error in the same.

We have considered the rival contentions and it is clear that the appellant was granted an opportunity to appear before the competent authority. Thereafter, the case was adjourned and when the award was passed, arguments took place and hearing of the matter was held before the authority, in processing of the representation of the appellant. It cannot be said that the opportunity of hearing was not granted to the appellant.

If the appellant wanted to lead evidence or wanted to cross-examine any witness, then an application to that effect should have been filed when the proceedings were held from 4.01.02 and on 25.02.02, 21.05.02 and again on 1.06.02 when the case was heard, the appellant did not move any such application for granting permission to lead evidence and after consideration of the matter when the award was passed, now the appellant is coming out with a case that the opportunity was not granted. The opportunity in accordance with the requirements of Section 50(2) was granted as is evident from the facts that have come on record and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.

As far as the law laid down in the case of Agra Development Authority (supra) is concerned, the learned Writ Court has considered the said judgment and it is only thereafter, held that an opportunity was granted.

Accordingly, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court warranting interference.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.