RAMBIHARI MISHRA SINCE DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS NEETA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Appeal No.292/2017:

(2.) The writ petition by the petitioner was directed against the notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh under section 4 read with section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "1894 Act") for acquisition of the land bearing Survey No.456 ad-measuring 2 bigha and 4 biswa (0.460 hectare) situated at Patwari Halka No.42 Mahalgaon, Tahsil and District Gwalior. The challenge was on the ground that the same is issued malafidely to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of a decree and is in flagrant violation of the provisions contained under section 4 (1) and 17 (1) and 17 (4) of 1894 Act; and that, no public interest is involved. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order negatived all the contentions and dismissed the petition.

(3.) Relevant facts leading to the controversy are that land in question was declared surplus by the competent authority and the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act of 1976 (for brevity "1976 Act") by order dated 22.4.1983. This order came to be challenged in Appeal on the ground that the Authority concern was not competent. The appeal was dismissed. Whereagainst Writ Petition M.P. No.135/1990 was allowed on 30.11.1994. The entire proceedings were quashed. However, during the interregnum period is from 22.4.1983 vesting of land with the State and the order passed in writ petition. The State Government treating the land being vested in it had constructed the hostel over the land in question for SC/ST students. That the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.20A/1995 for declaration, possession and mesne profit. The suit was decreed on 4.1.2003. Whereagainst First Appeal No.176/2003 was dismissed on 17.10.2006. That the order dated 30.11.1994 passed in M.P. No.135/1990 was challenged by the State of M.P. before Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed in 6.2.2009 and the Review Petition was dismissed on 18.2.2010. That in the meantime the decree in the civil suit was put to execution wherein the respondent State deposited Rs.5 Crores towards the cost of land and Rs.12 Lakhs towards the mesne profit. It appears from the record that the matter was sought to be resolved as the State Government having constructed the hostel made effort to retain the same. As the matter could not settle the State Government taking into consideration the public interest involved invoked the urgency clause and issued notification under section 4 (1) read with section 17 (1) and 17 (4) of 1894 Act. It was this notification which was challenged in the writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order.