No Violation Of Constitutional Or Statutory Rights: Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses Land Owners' Plea Seeking Direction To Authorities To Acquire Their Land
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a land owner's petition seeking direction to authorities to acquire his land.
The Court observed that non-acquisition of his land does not violate his fundamental, Constitutional, statutory or human rights.
The Court dismissed a petition filed to challenge the acquisition proceedings for a coal mining project under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 (the Act). The Bench observed that the “possibility of loss of business or damage to the property” of the petitioner was self-imaginary.
A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that no fundamental/ Constitutional/ statutory/ human rights have been violated on account of non-acquisition of land belonging to the petitioner coupled with the fact that acquisition of land within the radius of 45 meters of either side of Railway line as well as National Highway is not legally permissible, no case is made out warranting interference.”
Sr. Advocate Ashish Shrivastava appeared for the petitioner, while Dy. S.G. Pushpendra Yadav represented the respondents.
The petitioner argued that while the initial notifications under Sections 4 and 7 of the Act included their land for acquisition, a subsequent notification excluded it. Since the land was being acquired for extracting Coal, the petitioner argued that it could eventually cause their building to collapse, leading to a loss of business.
It was submitted that the act of the authorities in not acquiring the land of the petitioner was violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed that numerous complaints arose following the preliminary notification for the proposed land acquisition. Recognizing the area's dense population, the authorities opted not to acquire the 440 hectares in question. The Court also allowed the petitioner to include those residing or working on the excluded land as parties, but the petitioner declined, stating that they were not aggrieved by the notification and thus not "necessary parties."
“Since the persons who are satisfied with exclusion of their land from acquisition will be adversely affected if the petition is allowed thereby compelling the respondents to acquire the remaining 440 hectares of land, therefore, it is held that they are the necessary party and in their absence no effective order can be passed,” the Court observed.
The Bench remarked that the petitioner was not able to point out any violation of their “fundamental/ statutory/ Constitutional/ human rights. Although counsel for the petitioner tried to develop his arguments by taking aid of Article 300-A of Constitution of India but it is not a case where petitioner will be deprived of his/her property but it is the case of petitioner that his/her property should also be acquired by the respondents.”
The Court also pointed out that the acquisition of densely populated land may not be financially viable for the authorities as it would require them to pay compensation to the parties who will be dispossessed.
Consequently, the Court stated that it could not compel the authorities to acquire the land.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Rachana Shrivastava v. Union Of India & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Ashish Shrivastava; Advocate Vinod Mishra
Respondents: Dy. S.G. Pushpendra Yadav; Dy. A.G. Swapnil Ganguly; Advocate Greeshm Jain
