Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Cost On State While Allowing It To Respond To 2020 PIL Claiming Violation Of Land Acquisition Act

The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the State while permitting it to file its written submissions in a 2020 PIL, challenging a government notification on the ground that it violates the Land Acquisition Act 2013 inasmuch as it decreases the multiplying factor for calculation of market value of land.The division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain in its order said, “Last opportunity was granted to the respondents to file written submission vide order dated 19.12.2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.01.2025 one-week further time was granted, failing which same was to be accepted with cost of Rs. 15,000/, despite that the written submission has not been filed. Counsel for respondent seeks two weeks' further time to file written submission, however, the said will be subject to cost of Rs. 15,000/-to be paid to the petitioner. The earlier cost of Rs. 15000/- shall also be deposited in favour of M.P. High Court Legal Services Committee in terms of order dated 08.01.2025. The said amounts shall be paid within two weeks and on receipt of the said amount, the written submission shall be accepted.”For context, the First Schedule of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 states that the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas should be 1.0 (one) to 2.0 (two), to be based on distance of the rural area under acquisition from the urban area, as per notification by the appropriate government.The plea challenges a notification passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh which it claims contravenes provisions of the 2013 Act. It is contended that Section 26(2) (Determination of market value of land by the Collector) and Section 30(2) read in conjunction with the First Schedule of the 2013 Act makes it clear that for rural areas the multiplying factor will be more than 1 and between 1 and 2 based on the distance of project from urban area. However, State government in its September 29, 2014 notification notified this multiplying factor as just 1, which the plea claims is in clear violation of the provisions of the law. Section 30(2) states that the Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.During the hearing on January 28, the counsel for State submitted, “At the outset, we have to file a reply and written submission. I apologize since we have not been able to file.”At this stage the petitioner's counsel said that previously as well the court had imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000 on the State. He submitted, "On last two occasions there was last chance given to them. They are not interested. It is an open and shut case.”Thereafter, the Court asked the counsel for State as to how much time they would take to which the counsel sought two weeks time. The court thereafter, while addressing the counsel for State said, “This is 2020 petition. Neither you file the reply nor this…because there is no interim order, you do not bother about that. 5 years have passed. How many decades will you take?” The matter is now listed in the week commencing February 17.Case Title: Narmada Bachao Andolan versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 7320 of 2020Click Here To Read/Download Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Imposes Cost On State While Allowing It To Respond To 2020 PIL Claiming Violation Of Land Acquisition Act

Anukriti Mishra

Tags