Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has declared the acquisition of 3.176 hectares of land in Niranjanpur under Indore Development Authority’s (IDA) Scheme No. 114 Part-II as lapsed, quashing the authority’s communications seeking possession of the land after more than two decades.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Revachand and others, Justice Sandeep N Bhatt held that the acquisition could not be sustained as the authorities had neither taken possession of the land nor paid compensation. The court restrained them from taking further action against the petitioners based on the lapsed acquisition.
An acquisition award for the land, comprising several survey numbers in Niranjanpur village, was passed on November 27, 1992. However, the landowners’ predecessor entered into an agreement with the IDA on January 7, 1993, permitting private development subject to certain conditions, including the development of a drive-in cinema.
The petitioners argued that the IDA had abandoned the acquisition and acknowledged the land’s release for private development. They contended that the authority could not seek possession after such a prolonged period without paying compensation or taking possession.
Opposing the petition, the IDA alleged violations of the 1993 agreement and conditions of the exemption granted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. It maintained that the acquisition remained incomplete due to litigation and interim court orders, and that the petitioners were not entitled to claim lapse under the 2013 land acquisition law.
Examining the case, the High Court noted that even after excluding periods covered by court orders, six years, eight months and two days had elapsed before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into force on January 1, 2014. The court also considered earlier proceedings recording that the IDA had never taken possession of the land.
The court held that the IDA’s communications dated March 29, 2015, and April 17, 2015, seeking possession were arbitrary and unwarranted. It declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed under both the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the 2013 Act.
Accordingly, the court quashed both communications and declared the land released from Scheme No. 114 Part-II. The petition was allowed and disposed of.
