Land Acquisition Cannot Be Said To Have Lapsed If Steps Were Taken By The Development Authority During The Stipulated Time: Supreme Court

WHAT DID THE COURT SAY?

• In Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar & Ors., the Supreme Court held that in land acquisition proceedings which are related to public purpose schemes, the authorities should be given the time stipulated in the statutes to complete their work. 
• A Division Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted this while setting aside the order passed by the MP High Court, wherein the latter quashed an entire scheme meant for public purpose on the ground that the same has lapsed u/s 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT? 

• In this case, several writ petitions were filed in the lower court against finalisation of Scheme No. 97 (a residential scheme providing for other connected land uses) u/s 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and land acquisition proceedings u/s 4 and 6  of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 undertaken by the State of Madhya Pradesh. 
• On appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the same was dismissed and the order passed by the lower court was upheld, on the ground that the schemes in question have lapsed u/s 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. 
• Accordingly, an appeal was filed to the Supreme Court against the impugned judgement and order of the MP High Court.

OBSERVATION OF THE COURT AND DECISION: 

• The Ld. Court observed that as per Section 54 of the 1973 Adhiniyam, if a Town Development Authority does not commence implementation of the Town Development Scheme within the period stipulated in the said provision, the Scheme will lapse automatically. The Court also observed that the phrase “commence implementation” is important in the present context and needs to be interpreted correctly.
• The Court further noted that according to Section 56 of the 1973 Adhiniyam, the Development Authority was required to acquire the land needed for the implementation of the scheme within 3 years. Further, only on failure of the Development Authority to acquire the land within the stipulated time, the State Government had the right to acquire such land.
• It was observed by the Court that the Development Authority took several steps within these 3 years to acquire the land in question. Therefore, the High Court erred in holding that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

What do you think about the decision of the Court? Let us know in the comments section below!