State Not Acquiring Land Mentioned In Preliminary Notification Doesn't Violate Any Fundamental Or Statutory Right Of Landowner: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking inclusion of her land in the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957. The petition was primarily based on the grounds that the exclusion of her land from acquisition violated her constitutional right and would render her property valueless.Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia found no merit in the petition, holding that the exclusion of the land was based on valid legal and technical grounds, with no violation of the petitioner's fundamental, statutory, constitutional, or human rights.The court remarked,"Counsel for petitioner could not point out any violation of 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 possibility of loss of business or damage to the property of petitioner is self-imaginary and no such situation has arisen so far."The central legal question in the case was whether the petitioner's land, initially included in preliminary notifications for acquisition under Sections 4 and 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957, but later excluded, should be mandatorily acquired by the respondents.The petitioner argued that the exclusion of her land from the final notification issued under Section 9 of the Act was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. She contended that the acquisition of surrounding lands for coal extraction, while excluding her property, would devalue her land and potentially lead to the collapse of her hotel, thereby causing significant financial loss and unemployment for her employees.The respondents, represented by counsel, countered that the exclusion was based on a feasibility report submitted by CMPDIL, an expert body in coal mining, and the statutory requirements under the Coal Mines Regulations, 2017. They further argued that the petitioner's land, located within 45 meters of both a National Highway and a Railway line, fell within a restricted zone where acquisition is prohibited without special permission. Moreover, the exclusion of 440 hectares of densely populated land, including the petitioner's property, was a deliberate decision to avoid large-scale displacement and the associated compensation costs.The court examined the arguments and noted that the petitioner's assertion that the exclusion of her land would encircle her property, rendering it inaccessible and valueless, was not supported by the evidence. The court pointed out that "on one side of the land of petitioner, Katni Chopan Railway line is situated, whereas on the other side of the land of petitioner, the official as well as residential buildings including hospital of NCL are situated." Thus, the exclusion of the petitioner's land would not isolate it as claimed.Furthermore, the court emphasized the relevance of Regulation 119 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 2017, which prohibits the acquisition of land within a 45-meter radius of public roads and railway lines without special permissions. The court held that this regulation alone justified the exclusion of the petitioner's land, and "even on that ground, this Court cannot compel the respondents to acquire the land."The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that her property should be acquired based on the principle of equality under Article 14, stating that the exclusion of her land was based on rational, objective criteria, including safety and financial considerations.Finally, the court noted that the petitioner had failed to challenge the final notification issued under Section 9 of the Act, which further weakened her case. Concluding its judgment, the court stated, "no case is made out warranting interference" and dismissed the petition.Case title: Harcharan Singh Bhatia Versus Union Of India And Others [WRIT PETITION No. 22619 Of 2023] Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 186Click Here To Read/Download Order

State Not Acquiring Land Mentioned In Preliminary Notification Doesn't Violate Any Fundamental Or Statutory Right Of Landowner: MP High Court

Siddhi Nigam

Tags