MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme Will Not Lapse Merely Because It Was Not Completed Within 3 Years Despite Substantial Steps : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India recently set aside the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Indore Development Authority and the State of Madhya Pradesh for a residential scheme as lapsed. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna was hearing appeals moved by the Indore Development Authority challenging the High Court orders setting aside Scheme No. 97 under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and the subsequent land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.The Indore Development Authority passed a Resolution under Section 50(1) of the Adhiniyam on 13.03.1981 declaring its intention to frame Scheme No. 97 – a residential scheme providing for other connected land uses. In an order dated December 24, 1983, the State Government empowered all the Collectors and Divisional Commissioners to act as ex-officio Deputy Secretaries of the Department of Revenue, Government of Madhya Pradesh and ex-officio Secretary of the said Government respectively, for disposal of the cases under provisions of the 1894 Act. After completing various formalities, the IDA published Scheme No. 97. The scheme was challenged before the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court – both times, it was set aside. The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions declaring Scheme No. 97 as illegal and invalid and quashed and set aside the entire acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act on three grounds: That there was no delegation of power by the State Government with regard to Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 to Collector; That IDA failed to take substantial steps to implement the scheme within a period of three years from the date of final publication as envisaged under section 54 of the Adhiniyam; and That huge and big chunk of land, out of the total land sought to be acquired by the Authority, has been released.The Additional Solicitor General submitted that in view of the timeline which was set out, the Single Judge had completely erred in declaring the scheme as having lapsed on the ground of non-implementation of the scheme under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The words “commence implementation” occurring in Section 54 do not mean completion of implementation of the scheme. The reasonable interpretation would be that some steps should be taken by the Authority for implementation of the scheme.Advocate Punit Jain, appearing on behalf of the respective contesting respondents submitted neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court has committed any error in quashing and setting aside the scheme(s) and the related acquisition proceedings. What the Court said After going through the facts, the Bench had a look at Section 56 of the Adhiniyam. The provision states that within three years the Development Authority was required to proceed to acquire by agreement the land required for the implementation of the scheme and only thereafter and on its failure so to acquire, the State Government may, at the request of the Development Authority, proceed to acquire such land.The Development Authority stated that in the present case since negotiations failed and the Development Authority failed to acquire the land by agreement, it had requested the State Government to acquire the land, which request was made within a period of three years from the date of finalization of the scheme. Therefore, the Development Authority submitted that the scheme had not have lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. These steps were in furtherance of, or commencing implementation of the scheme.However, as per the High Court, actual implementation of the scheme is a must and that there were no substantial steps to implement the scheme within three years. That to make the request four days before the completion of three years would not be sufficient and therefore the scheme has lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam, the High Court noted. In this connection, the Supreme Court endorsed the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanjai Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit v. State of M.P AIR 1991 MP 72. While interpreting the words “implementation of the scheme” and the word “implementation” occurring in section 54 of the Adhiniyam, it held that the word “implementation” occurring in section 54 of the Adhiniyam cannot be construed to mean that even after substantial steps have been taken by the authority towards the implementation of the scheme, the scheme shall lapse after the expiry of three years because of its non-completion within that period.“The words used are “proceed to acquire” and not “actual acquisition”. The intention of the legislature thus seems to be very clear and unambiguous. Therefore, when the Statute provides certain things to be done within the stipulated time mentioned in the Act, the Authority is to be given such time, more...

MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme Will Not Lapse Merely Because It Was Not Completed Within 3 Years Despite Substantial Steps : Supreme Court

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rintu Mariam Biju

MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme Will Not Lapse Merely Because It Was Not Completed Within 3 Years Despite Substantial Steps : Supreme Court

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers