Land Acquisition By Indore Development Authority Upheld By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (Indore Development Authorit Vs Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar and Others D.D. 03 March 2023)  overturned a decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that quashed land acquisition proceedings and the development scheme by the Indore Development Authority (IDA) for Sneh Nagar. The High Court had ruled that the scheme had lapsed in view of section 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, that a substantial portion of the lands forming part of the two schemes had been released, and there was no delegation of the power of the State Government under Section 5-A to the Commissioner.

The IDA had passed a resolution under Section 50(1) of the Adhiniyam in 1981, declaring its intention to frame Scheme No. 97. After completing various formalities, the IDA published Scheme No. 97 on 08.06.1984, and subsequently, notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette, and the notification was also published in the two daily Hindi newspapers on 14.08.1987. The Collector made his award in respect of the acquired land on 6.03.1991.

The Landowners original writ petitioners challenged the notifications under sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and prayed that the entire acquisition proceedings be quashed, and Scheme No. 97 prepared by the IDA be quashed, and their land be ordered to be deleted and released therefrom and obtained interim orders. The Indore Development Authority (IDA) filed appeals against a common judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which dismissed appeals against the writ petitions challenging the finalization of Scheme No. 97 under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and the subsequent land acquisition proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Supreme Court noted that under section 56 of the Adhiniyam, the Development Authority may proceed to acquire by agreement the land required for the implementation of the scheme within three years from the date of publication of the final town development scheme under section 50, and only thereafter and on its failure so to acquire, the State Government may proceed to acquire such land. The Development Authority had requested the State Government to acquire the land within three years from the date of finalization of the scheme, and therefore the scheme had not lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The Supreme Court clarified that the words used in Section 54 of the Adhiniyam are "fails to commence implementation", which does not mean that there must be implementation of the scheme within the time stipulated under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. There is a clear distinction between the words "implementation" of the scheme and "to commence implementation".

The Supreme Court observed that Rule 19 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gran Nivesh Niyam, 1975 r/w Section 56 of the Adhiniyam are relevant to the case. It noted that the intention of the legislature was to allow the Authority a stipulated time to proceed with land acquisition for the implementation of the scheme. The Court held that the words "proceed to acquire" meant that the Authority was given time to carry out the necessary steps for land acquisition, even if actual acquisition did not occur within the stipulated time frame.

The Court also held that the High Court had erred in declaring that the scheme had lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam, as it had taken various steps within the stipulated time period for implementation of the scheme, including negotiating with landowners and seeking State Government assistance for land acquisition. The Court criticized the narrow interpretation adopted by the High Court while considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam.

The Supreme Court held that the delegation of power by the State Government to the District Collector and Commissioner of the division was valid and included the power to adjudicate matters related to land acquisition under Sections 4, 5, 6, and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Even though Section 5A was not specifically mentioned in the delegation order, it did not render the entire acquisition proceedings, including notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, illegal.

The Court further noted that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act could only be issued after the report submitted under Section 5A had been considered by the appropriate government. In this case, the objections under Section 5A had been considered by the Collector, who had been specially appointed by the appropriate government to perform the functions of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the High Court had erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no proper delegation of power to the Collector with regard to Section 5A of the Act.

The third ground was that a large chunk of land had been released from the scheme and this was done arbitrarily and with the object of undue favoritism.

The Supreme Court held that the release of the land was not arbitrary and was done for valid reasons or valid grounds, and that it had not prejudiced or affected the integrity of the scheme. The end result of the release of some land was that the total area of the scheme was lesser to that extent, but the integrity of the scheme remained the same. Some of the lands had already been used by the authority for the purpose of a park which was used for the benefit of local people. Therefore, the third ground on which the scheme and the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed by the High Court did not stand and the finding was unsustainable.

Appeal allowed and the judgments of the High Court and Single Judge declaring the scheme as lapsed and quashing the acquisition proceedings unsustainable and quashed.

D.D. 03 March 2023

Indore Development Authorit Vs Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar and Others