JABALPUR, India, May 24 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment on April 23:

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-

"7.1- Issue a Writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and call the entire records of the effected village Kudri in which the respondents had done illegal depillaring work and damaged the agriculture land of petitioners.

7.2- To direct the respondents to pay the adequate damages to the petitioners for their agriculture land since 2000 with interest and also provide the jobs to the effected families or benefit of rehabilitation scheme.

7.3- Alternatively direct the respondents to provide the suitable land to the petitioners as per the provisions of the new act i.e. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation Act Resettlement Act, 2013

7.4- And pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the only grievance of the petitioners is that the earth beneath the land of the petitioners has been taken for mining purposes by the respondents/company, for which an agreement was executed on 25.06.2006 (Annexure-R/1).

3. According to Clause-6 of the agreement, it is agreed between the parties that after completion of three years, the respondents shall make the land cultivable and restore it to its original position. It is submitted that as the respondents have not restored it, the petitioners are not in a position to cultivate their own land. The respondents have also not granted compensation for the same as agreed between the parties as per Clause-6, which provides the respondent/company shall restore the land and make it cultivable and if it is made by petitioners, then all the expenses shall be borne by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners were made to believe that land acquired by the respondents shall be restored after three years and by application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation, the petitioners cannot be left with unrestored land from where no livelihood can be earned. By way of agreement, the earth beneath the land has been utilized and it was in lieu of promise to be fulfilled . The right to property is a constitutional right enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and the petitioners earn their livelihood from the agricultural land; therefore, their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the respondents.

5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent/company has already restored the land for cultivable use. It is further submitted that the respondents have made categorical statement in regard to it in the return and to contradict it, no rejoinder has been filed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the photographs (Annexure-P/3) to state that the condition of the land has not been restored and made cultivable; therefore, the petitioners are not able to cultivate their crops. However, from a perusal of the photographs, it is not identifiable whether the land in question has been restored to its original position and made cultivable or not.

8. Parties have made allegations and counter-allegations. In the considered opinion of the Court, the controversy cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as disputed questions of fact are involved.

Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2015/WP/5222/WP_5222_2015_FinalOrder_23-04-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.