Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyanwati Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24409
1 WA-2446-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 2446 of 2024
GYANWATI YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mukhtar Ahmad - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi- Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Shri Amitabh Gupta- Advocate through video conferencing and
Shri Adarsh Singh Chauhan- Advocate physically for the
respondent/Intervenor.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal challenging the order
dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby the writ court has dismissed the
W.P No. 14574/2022.
2. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:-
(i) The appellants are the recorded bhumiswamis of land bearing
Khasra No. 119/2 and 119/3, admeasuring 0.999 hectares, situated at Mauza
Madhotal, Tehsil Adhartal, District Jabalpur. The respondent authoritiesSignature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:244092 WA-2446-2024
initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by
issuing a notification under Section 4 dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) for
the acquisition of land admeasuring 0.120 hectares, followed by a declaration
under Section 6 dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-3).
(ii) During the pendency of the acquisition proceedings, the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. The appellants approached this
Court earlier, and directions were issued to consider the provisions of the
said new Act while determining compensation. It is the case of the
appellants that, apart from the notified land, the respondents have taken
possession of additional land admeasuring 0.090 hectares for the
construction of a road, without initiating any acquisition proceedings in
respect thereof. Pursuant to earlier proceedings, demarcation was carried out
by the revenue authorities, and the Collector, Jabalpur, by order dated
04.04.2016 (Annexure P-7), found that excess land admeasuring 0.090
hectares belonging to the appellants had been utilised by the Municipal
Corporation Jabalpur and directed appropriate action.
(iii) An inquiry conducted by the Tahsildar also recorded a finding that
no compensation had been paid to the appellants or their predecessors in
respect of the said excess land. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation
determined compensation for the excess land at Rs. 1,17,03,900/- in terms of
its resolution dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-14), which amount was received
by the appellants.
(iv) Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and claiming
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24409
3 WA-2446-2024
enhancement under the provisions of the Act of 2013, the appellants filed
W.P. No. 14574/2022 seeking enhanced compensation along with statutory
benefits and damages. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned
Single Judge directed the appellants to refund the compensation amount
along with interest as a condition for consideration of their claim for
enhancement. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 29.08.2024, the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the
appellants had accepted the compensation without protest, thereby implying
consent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the
present writ appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS :
3. Learned counsel submitted that the Writ Court erred in dismissing
the writ petition on the sole ground that the appellants had accepted the
compensation amount, without appreciating the settled legal position
governing land acquisition and the constitutional protection of property
rights. The impugned order is unsustainable in law as it overlooks that the
right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution cannot be taken
away except by authority of law, and such right cannot be defeated merely
on the basis of alleged implied consent. It is submitted that the respondents
have illegally taken possession of an additional extent of 0.090 hectares of
land belonging to the appellants without initiating any acquisition
proceedings. The said act is arbitrary, unlawful, and in clear violation of due
process, as no notification, declaration, or award was passed with respect tothe excess land. The action of the respondents amounts to wrongful
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:244094 WA-2446-2024
dispossession, and such unauthorised occupation cannot be legitimised in the
eyes of the law.
4 . It is submitted that the Writ Court further failed to appreciate that
where land is taken without following the procedure prescribed under law,
the landowners are entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Learned
Counsel has relied upon the case of Vidya Devi v. State of U.P., where the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that forcible dispossession
without acquisition is unconstitutional and compensation must be determined
under the 2013 Act, along with all statutory benefits. The Learned Counsel
further contends that the finding that the appellants accepted compensation
without protest is factually incorrect. The appellants had accepted the amount
under protest, as evidenced by documentary material placed on record.
5 . It is further submitted that it is a settled principle that consent must
be free, informed, and preferably in writing. Mere acceptance of
compensation, especially in circumstances involving unequal bargaining
power, does not amount to waiver of legal rights. The doctrine of implied
consent cannot be applied in cases involving deprivation of property by the
State. The Learned Counsel submits that the Writ Court has also erred in
applying Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act to the facts of the present
case. The dispute pertains to compulsory acquisition of land, which is
governed by statutory provisions and not by principles of contract law. Even
otherwise, the circumstances clearly indicate the absence of free consent and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24409
5 WA-2446-2024
the presence of coercive elements, thereby rendering such application of
contract law principles wholly misplaced. It is further submitted that despite
the initiation of acquisition proceedings in the year 2012, the respondents
have failed to pass a final award to date. Such inaction on the part of the
authorities is arbitrary and reflects administrative apathy, causing grave
prejudice to the appellants. The appellants have been deprived of both their
land and lawful compensation for an inordinate period.
6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the appellants are
entitled to enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
2013 Act, including solatium, interest, and other statutory benefits.
Additionally, since the excess land was taken without the authority of law,
the appellants are also entitled to damages for wrongful dispossession.
Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the direction of the Writ Court
requiring the appellants to refund the compensation amount along with
interest as a precondition for consideration of their claim is arbitrary and
unsustainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside
and appropriate directions be issued for payment of just and fair
compensation to the appellants in accordance with law.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :
7 . Learned Counsel submitted that the present writ appeal is devoid of
merit and deserves to be dismissed. The Writ Court has passed a well-
reasoned and legally sound order, which does not call for any interference.
The appellants have approached this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and
are attempting to seek enhancement of compensation after having already
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24409
6 WA-2446-2024
accepted the amount determined by the competent authority. It is further
submitted that the appellants have voluntarily accepted the compensation
amount of Rs. 1,17,03,900/- as determined by the Municipal Corporation in
accordance with the prevailing guideline rates. The acceptance of the said
amount without any immediate and effective challenge clearly amounts to
acquiescence, and the appellants are now estopped from claiming any further
enhancement.
8 . Learned Counsel further submits that the compensation was
determined after due consideration by the competent authority through
Resolution dated 08.07.2019, and the same reflects a fair and reasonable
valuation based on applicable rates. The appellants cannot now be permitted
to reopen the issue of compensation merely because they seek a higher
amount.
9 . It is contended that the contention of the appellants that the land was
taken without due process is misconceived. The respondents have acted
within the framework of the law, and the amount of compensation has
already been paid to the appellants. Once compensation has been accepted,
the transaction attains finality and cannot be reopened at the instance of the
appellants. It is submitted that the Writ Court rightly held that the conduct of
the appellants in accepting the compensation without protest gives rise to an
inference of implied consent. The principles underlying Section 19 of the
Indian Contract Act were correctly applied to the facts of the present case, as
the appellants cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the benefit and
simultaneously challenging the same.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24409
7 WA-2446-2024
10. Learned Counsel further submits that the appellants failed to
comply with the direction of the Writ Court requiring a refund of the
compensation amount along with interest as a condition precedent for
consideration of their claim for enhancement. Non-compliance with the said
direction disentitles the appellants from seeking any equitable relief from this
Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that the claim for enhanced compensation
is highly exaggerated and unsupported by any cogent material. The
appellants have failed to establish any legal right to claim compensation
beyond what has already been paid.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Shri Mukhtar Ahmad- Advocate appearing for the appellants fairly
submits that the appellants are not in a position to return the amount of Rs.
1,17,03,900/- to the respondents. In such a situation, it can be safely held that
the appellant accepted the cost of the land by way of mutual agreement, and
now, the appellant/petitioner cannot raise an objection about its inadequacy
and seek enhancement in the name of compensation.
13. Apart from the aforesaid, one Ritudhwaj Agarwal, S/o Late Shri
Uttam Chand Agarwal, has filed an application for intervention in the writ
petition disputing the right and entitlement of the petitioner/appellant to get
the compensation for the land in question by making an allegation of fraud.
According to the proposed intervenor, the petitioner has misappropriated the
compensation of the land which was falling in the share of the late Smt. Lata
Yadav. The petitioner no.5 has filed a declaratory suit against Smt. Lata
Yadav with respect to Khasra No. No. 119/3, and 119/2. Vide judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24409
8 WA-2446-2024
dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure I-14), the suit has been dismissed. The
petitioner has also suppressed the filing of the earlier W.P No. 12324/2013,
W.P No. 20380/2013, W.P No. 17447/2014, W.P No. 5010/2015, W.P No.
866/2017 and W.P No. 10448/2020.
14. In view of the aforesaid fact, it appears that the
appellants/petitioners had hurriedly accepted the amount of Rs.1,17,03,900/-
for the land in question by way of mutual agreement without any objection.
Had the acquisition proceedings been initiated by the Municipal Corporation,
the other owners could have come forward to claim compensation as their
share in the land. The appellants are not showing bona fide by returning the
amount and participating in the land acquisition proceeding under the Act of
2013, under the fear that they may not get the amount of compensation, as
there are other persons, like interveners, who may get the amount of
compensation. Therefore, in view of the above, we do not find any ground to
interfere. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
tarun
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 28-03-2026
12:09:54
