INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BURHANI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT SNEH NAGAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 03-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BURHANI GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT
SNEH NAGAR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973
– ss. 50 and 54 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 5A and 6 –
Indore Development Authority (IDA) passed a resolution u/s.50 of
Act, 1973, declaring its intention to frame a residential scheme
providing for other connected land uses – IDA published the said
scheme – State Government by order delegated its power to the
District Collector to act as Under Secretary – IDA started mutual
negotiations with the landowners for procurement of their land for
the scheme – Mutual negotiations failed – IDA moved the Collector
for acquisition of the land – Notification u/s.4 of the 1894 Act was
published, and report u/s.5A of the 1894 Act was filed before the
Collector for approval – Declaration u/s.6 was published – In year
1997, some lands were released from scheme – The notifications
u/s.4 and s.6 of the 1894 Act was challenged before the Single
Judge of the High Court, which in turn quashed the scheme framed
by the IDA (on the ground that the same had lapsed in view of s.54
of the 1973 Act) as well as the land acquisition proceedings initiated
by the State Government – The IDA preferred appeals before the
Division Bench of the High Court, which confirmed the order of the
Single Judge – On appeal, held: Within three years various steps
were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to
acquire the land by negotiations and thereafter approaching the
State Government to acquire the land, the High Court has erred in
declaring that the scheme has lapsed – High Court has adopted too
narrow a meaning while interpreting s.54 of 1973 Act – Further
held, merely because s.5A has not been mentioned in the order of
State Government delegating its power, the entire acquisition
proceedings cannot be declared illegal – When the Collector has
exercised the power of the appropriate Government and a
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 84
84
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
85
declaration u/s.6 has been issued after considering the report on
the objections u/s.5A, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing
the entire acquisition proceedings – Also, it cannot be said that the
release of the land was arbitrary and/or with an object of undue
favour to those persons whose lands have been released – Release
of the land which according to the authority was for valid reasons
or valid grounds has not prejudiced or affected the integrity of the
scheme – As the integrity of the scheme remains the same, thus, the
finding of High Court is unsustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. When within three years various steps were taken
for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire
the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire
the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to
acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court
has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed under section
54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,
1973. The High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while
interpreting and/or considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam. [Para
11][113-G-H]
2. So far as quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition
proceedings including sections 4 & 6 notifications issued under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act with respect to the
lands in question on the ground that there was no proper
delegation of power to the Collector with regard to Section 5A of
the Act, is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the present
case, the State Government vide its letter dated 22.3.1985
delegated its power to the District Collector as Deputy Secretary
of the Revenue Department and to the Commissioner of the
division to act as Secretary of the Revenue Department and to
adjudicate matters related to land acquisition by exercising powers
given under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 17 of the Act, 1894. Merely
because Section 5A has not been mentioned in the said order,
the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications under
Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and more particularly the
declaration which was issued after considering the report/
objections under section 5A cannot be declared illegal. [Para
12][114-B-D]
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BURHANI GRIH NIRMAN
SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT SN

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.