New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Thursday, refused to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision upholding the acquisition of land near the Takiya Masjid in Ujjain for the Mahakal Lok Phase-II project.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Mohammed Taiyab, saying that it was “not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court”.
“The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” the Justice Nath-led bench said.
The SLP arose from the January 11, 2025, judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging land acquisition awards relating to the expansion of parking facilities for devotees visiting the Mahakaleshwar Temple and the Mahakal Lok complex.
In its detailed order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the acquisition was initiated after the Mahakaleshwar Mandir Prabandhan Committee requested the state government to acquire land near Triveni Sangrahalaya to facilitate parking.
The District Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer Raushan Kumar Singh invoked the urgency clause under Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to acquire more than 2.13 hectares of land.
Rejecting the appellants’ plea, a bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar noted that the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy.
“Admittedly, the appellants/writ petitioners have a remedy to seek a reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013,” it said, adding that the competent authority under Section 64 was empowered to examine objections relating not only to compensation but also to rehabilitation and resettlement.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also said that the petitioners had not challenged the acquisition notifications invoking urgency.
“The appellants straightaway challenged the final award passed after the issuance of the notifications from time to time under the Act of 2013,” the Justice Rusia-led bench said.
It also noted that out of nearly 250 affected families, more than 230 had accepted compensation and vacated the land, leaving only a small number of occupants resisting the project.
Before the Supreme Court, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioner, said that the acquisition was vitiated due to the absence of a mandatory social impact assessment.
However, the apex court was not persuaded and upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s view that alternative statutory remedies were available against the land acquisition award.
(IANS)
