Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking multiple reliefs, including the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay compensation for the acquisition of petitioners’ house/land, which was paid to wrong person, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed the petition. The Court however, granted the petitioners liberty to pursue an efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. which provides a mechanism for individuals who believe compensation was wrongly awarded to seek a reference.
In the instant matter, the petitioners’ land was acquired for the construction of the Lalitpur Singrauli Railway Line and compensation for the acquired land was allegedly paid to two other persons instead of the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to compensation and requested the Court to call for the relevant records pertaining to the subject matter for the Court’s perusal. The petitioners sought a writ directing the respondents to pay compensation for the acquisition of their house/land, with interest at 18% per annum, in accordance with the prevalent market rate mentioned in the guidelines of the Collector.
The Court noted that respondents acquired land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act). The Court observed that if a person believes that compensation has been paid to the wrong party, it constitutes grounds for making a reference under Section 64 of the Act. The Court held that determining the rightful entitlement to compensation involves disputed questions of fact which require evidence and can be adjudicated through the proper statutory remedy provided under Section 64 of the Act.
The Court granted the petitioners liberty to pursue an efficacious remedy under Section 64 of the Act and dismissed the petition. The Court also stated that the Court did not evaluate the merits of the case and clarified that any reference made should be decided in accordance with the law, without being influenced by this dismissal.
[Manoj Singh v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4803, Decided on 08-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Sandipan Shukla, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Buy Constitution of India HERE
