WP/14375/2009 of SMT.POURA BAI Vs SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 15 December 2010

WP-14375-2009

(SMT.POURA BAIVs SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

15-12-2010

Shri Devendra Shukla, learned counsel for thepetitioner.

Shri A.P. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for theState.

Shri N.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

This writ petition though was filed in the year 2009

but on several occasions opportunity was extended to therespondents to file the return. The order sheet indicatesthat as a last opportunity time was allowed to therespondents to file the return, failing which their right tofile the return was to be closed. Yet no return,whatsoever, has been filed.

The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:

�(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly bepleased to direct the respondents to allot thegovernment land equal lands to the acquiredlands of the petitioner and other villagerswhose lands have been acquired.

ii. order of allotment of the governmentIf relief No.1 can not be granted thenland to respondent No.7 Jaikaran--AnnexureP5 and P7Singh Patel maykindly be quashed and appropriateaction be taken against the personwho is responsible for allotment of thegovernment land to respondent No.7Jaikararan Singh Patel.

iii. Hon'ble Court deem fit and properAny other appropriate relief which themay kindly be granted to thepetitioner in the interest of justice.

iv. respondents.�Cost and may also be saddled on the So far as the first relief is concerned, the said reliefis available to the petitioner only if any statutoryprovision is made in that respect. It is not disputed thatunder the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code,amendment has been made and it is provided that if theland of individual is acquired by the State Governmentfor the public projects or for the public use, the saidperson may be granted proportionate alternative land ifacceptable to him. However, it is not known whether theland of the present petitioner was acquired prior tocoming into the force of the said amendment in the M.P.Land Revenue Code. To that extent, it would beappropriate to relegate back the matter to the Collector,Satna to examine the amended provisions of M.P. LandRevenue Code and in case it is found that the land of thepetitioner was acquired prior to the coming into theforce of the said amendment, to inform the petitioneraccordingly. However, in case it is found that the land ofthe petitioner was acquired after coming into the force ofthe said amendment of M.P. Land Revenue Code, itwould be an obligation on the respondents to considerthe claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternativeland in terms of the statutory provisions. Let thatexercise be completed within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orderpassed today.

This take the Court, to the relief No.2 claimed bythe petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 has stated that theamount of the compensation granted to him in view ofthe award for acquisition of his land, has already beendeposited back to the respondent/State vide a challan inthe State Bank of India. That fact is required to beverified by the Collector. In view of this, if any allotmentof the land in favour of the respondent No.7 is made bythe State, that cannot be said to be faulty. However, thesaid aspect as indicated herein above is required to beexamined by the Collector and to take appropriate stepsin respect of allotment of the land to the respondentNo.7.

Nothing more is required to be said in the presentwrit petition which stand disposed of with the aforesaiddirection.

(RAJENDRA MENON)JUDGE