BEENA BAI BHATE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition seeks quashment of order (P-13) passed by the State Government on 24-7-2002 and further to release lands of the petitioner from the intending acquisition and to declare the entire proceedings of intending acquisition to be illegal and contrary to law.

(2.) IT is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a Bhuswami of certain lands admeasuring 20. 27 acres situated at Khandwa Taraf Kunbi, Tehsil khandwa, Distt. East Nimar. A draft development plan (P-3) was published under Section 18 (1) of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. Petitioner came to know that in the draft development plan, some portion of her land was also included and the intention was for making land available for navchandi Mela. Petitioner submitted objection (P-4) on 27-3-2000. It was pointed out that the land is ancestral land and petitioner had already executed a will duly registered intending to transfer the same to her sons and grand sons. There is sufficient land available and there is no necessity to acquire land for navchandi Mela purpose. The said Temple has been constructed in the residential locality of Tilak Nagar, Devshree, Gayatri Colony and Luv-Kush nagar etc. It is averred that a committee was constituted consisting of Member of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly, Mayor, President Zila panchayat, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and Collector. The Committee considered the objections and decided that the land was not required and the objections of the petitioner and others were accepted. Resolution (P-5), dated 26-5-2000 was passed by the Committee. Petitioner submits that resolution can not be superseded and in spite of resolution the land of the petitioner has been included in the development plan, gazette notification (P-6) has been made for that purpose. The land comprises in Survey Nos. 386,388,389 and 392 have been included. Development plan (P-6) has been prepared. Petitioner filed review petition (P-8) under Section 23-A of the Adhiniyam. It is contended by the petitioner that before modifying the plan or inclusion of the land in the proposed acquisition she was entitled for proper hearing. Govt. ought to have taken action under Section 23-A as land is not required. The land acquisition officer has confirmed the amount of compensation in respect of land of Village khandwa Taraf Kunbi, bearing Khasra Nos. 394/1,394/2,394/5, 394/6,394/7, 394/8,394/10 and 394/11. The petitioner assails the action on the ground that the objection was accepted by the committee and the land of the petitioner was released from acquisition, as such it was not permissible to initiate proceedings behind the back of the petitioner. The proceedings are in colourable exercise of power. Initially the proposal was for 16 acres of land and out of that, in front of temple, five acres has already been acquired. The intending acquisition is between the residential colonies and, therefore, all the people in that area are likely to be affected adversely. The State Government has erred in passing the order (P-13) on frivolous grounds and the entire acquisition appears to be for extending the favour to Bhagat Gangaram Baba, which can not be said to be for a public purpose.

(3.) SHRI A. G. Dhande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once objection was decided in favour of the petitioner before taking any adverse action it was necessary to afford opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner remained under impression that his land has been released as per the resolution of the committee. Thus, the decision of the State Govt. in notifying the land for acquisition in the development scheme as per the Gazette Notification (P-6) issued under Section 19 of the adhiniyam, is bad in law. The purpose can not be said to be a public purpose. Land of the petitioner is not required. Thus, notification (P-6) issued under section 19 is bad in law. He also assailed the order (P-13) passed by State government. He submitted that the matter has not been properly dealt with by the State Government. The State Government ought to have made the recommendation for modification of the plan.