In a significant development, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the State Government for its delayed response in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2020. The PIL challenges a government notification that allegedly contravenes the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) by reducing the multiplying factor used to calculate the market value of land in rural areas.
Background of the PIL
The PIL in question contests a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government on September 29, 2014. According to the petitioner, this notification unlawfully sets the multiplying factor for determining the market value of land in rural areas at 1.0, irrespective of the distance from urban centers. This action is claimed to be in direct violation of Section 26(2) and Section 30(2) of the LARR Act, which, when read in conjunction with the First Schedule of the Act, stipulate that the multiplying factor in rural areas should range between 1.0 and 2.0. The exact factor is to be determined based on the distance of the rural area under acquisition from the nearest urban area.
Legal Provisions in Question
Section 26(2) of the LARR Act outlines the methodology for determining the market value of land by the Collector, emphasizing that the value in rural areas should be adjusted by a factor ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. This adjustment is intended to ensure fair compensation, reflecting the land's proximity to urban centers and its potential value. Section 30(2) mandates that the Collector issue individual awards detailing the compensation payable, adhering to the guidelines specified in the First Schedule of the Act.
Court Proceedings and State's Delayed Response
The High Court had previously granted the State multiple opportunities to file its written submissions in response to the PIL. An order dated December 19, 2024, provided the State with a final chance to submit its response. Subsequently, on January 8, 2025, the court extended this deadline by one week, stipulating that any further delay would result in a cost of Rs. 15,000. Despite these directives, the State failed to file its written submission within the allotted time.
During the hearing on January 28, 2025, the counsel representing the State sought an additional two weeks to file the written submission. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, expressed displeasure over the repeated delays. The court granted the requested extension but imposed a cumulative cost of Rs. 30,000 on the State—Rs. 15,000 payable to the petitioner and Rs. 15,000 to be deposited in favor of the M.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, as per the earlier order dated January 8, 2025. The court mandated that these amounts be paid within two weeks, after which the State's written submission would be accepted.
Implications of the Case
This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring timely compliance with its directives and upholding the provisions of the LARR Act. The imposition of costs on the State for delayed responses highlights the court's intolerance for procedural lapses, especially in matters concerning public interest and statutory rights. The outcome of this PIL could have significant implications for land acquisition processes in Madhya Pradesh, particularly concerning the calculation of compensation for landowners in rural areas.
By challenging the State's notification, the petitioner seeks to ensure that the compensation for acquired land is calculated fairly, in accordance with the statutory provisions designed to protect landowners' interests. The court's decision to penalize the State for its tardiness reflects the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the protection of fundamental rights in land acquisition matters.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.