Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition in Madhya Pradesh Over Procedural Lapses

The Supreme Court in Dinesh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others delivered a landmark judgment on May 15, 2024, quashing land acquisition proceedings that violated statutory requirements under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court ruled that procedural lapses, particularly in the hearing of objections by an unauthorized officer, rendered the acquisition illegal.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the acquisition of agricultural land in Village Jamodi, Tehsil Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, for establishing a Multi-Modal Logistics Park under the Bharatmala Project. The sequence of events leading to the dispute is as follows:

On May 27, 2022, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, proposing to acquire land.
The landowners, including the appellants, filed objections under Section 15 on September 1, 2022, with the Collector.
As no response was received, fresh objections were filed on December 23, 2022.
Instead of the Collector, the objections were reviewed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who rejected them on February 27, 2023.
A declaration under Section 19 was issued on March 10, 2023, followed by a final award on October 3, 2023.
The appellants challenged the process before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed their petitions on October 13, 2023, stating they had become infructuous after the final award.
The appellants subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the acquisition.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Landowners)

The petitioners argued that:

The objections were required to be decided by the Collector, not the SDO.
Under Section 15(2), only the Collector could forward objections to the appropriate government, making the SDO’s order illegal.
The High Court erred in dismissing their plea as infructuous without considering the procedural lapses.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh)

The State countered that:

Under Section 3(e) and 3(g) of the Act, the Collector had the authority to designate another officer, in this case, the SDO, to conduct hearings.
The objections were heard following due process, and the final award had already been passed.
The High Court’s decision was justified since the acquisition process had been completed.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Violation of Section 15(2)

The Court held that Section 15(2) mandates that the Collector alone must decide on objections:

“The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard and to make a report to the appropriate Government. The decision cannot be delegated to the SDO.”

2. Hearing by Unauthorized Officer

The Court found that the SDO lacked the authority to hear and decide objections:

“The landowners’ objections were unlawfully decided by the SDO instead of the Collector. Such procedural lapses render the entire acquisition process illegal.”

3. High Court’s Dismissal Was Incorrect

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s dismissal of the petitions, ruling:

“The High Court erred in declaring the petitions infructuous simply because a final award had been passed. A legally flawed acquisition cannot be sustained.”

Key Findings and Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The land acquisition proceedings were quashed as they violated statutory provisions.
The final award dated October 3, 2023, was declared illegal and set aside.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated October 13, 2023, was reversed.
The State was directed to reconsider the objections and conduct fresh proceedings as per law.

The Court ordered:

“The impugned judgment dated 13th October 2023 is hereby quashed. The final award dated 3rd October 2023 is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the objections as per law.”

Implications of the Judgment

Strict Compliance with Land Acquisition Act: The ruling reinforces that procedural compliance is critical in land acquisition cases.
Authority of Collector: Only the Collector can hear and decide objections under Section 15.
Judicial Review of Land Acquisitions: Courts will intervene if due process is not followed.
Impact on Future Infrastructure Projects: Government agencies must strictly follow the Act to avoid similar legal challenges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dinesh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others is a landmark decision ensuring that land acquisition processes adhere strictly to the law. By quashing the acquisition, the Court has reinforced landowners’ rights and the necessity for procedural fairness.

Petitioner Name: Dinesh and Others.
Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Village Jamodi, Tehsil Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 15-05-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: dinesh-and-others-vs-state-of-madhya-prad-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-05-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Satish Chandra Sharma
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category