Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harishankar Tyagi S/O Kishabndas Tyagi … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
1 FA-1424-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 1424 of 2023
HARISHANKAR TYAGI S/O KISHABNDAS TYAGI THROUGH ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR KAPIL TYAGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Krishna Upadhyay - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rajendra Jain - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Sarwesh Singh Chauhan- Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed against Award dated 04/03/2023 passed by First
District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC No.14/2016.
2. I.A.No.3657/2026 has been filed for amendment.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
4. The amendment has been carried out by counsel for MPRDC in the
memo of appeal as well as cross-objection in the Court itself after taking due
permission.
5. I.A.No.3637/2026 has been filed seeking leave to file cross-objection on
the ground that although, MPRDC was the necessary party, but neither it was
impleaded as respondent, nor notice of reference was given either by Collector or
by Reference Court.
6. I.A.No.3639/2026, an application has also been filed seeking exemption
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
2 FA-1424-2023
from filing an affidavit in support of an application for grant of leave to file cross
objection.
7. Since it is the case of MPRDC that it was not impleaded as a party
before the Reference Court, and that fact has not been disputed by counsel for
appellants, therefore, requirement of filing an affidavit in support of application is
hereby waived, and MPRDC is exempted from filing an affidavit in support of an
application for grant of leave to file cross-objection.
8. Considered I.A. No.3637/2026 .
9. It is the case of MPRDC that being the beneficiary, it is a necessary
party, and to buttress its contention, counsel for MPRDC has relied upon the
judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Road
Development Corporation Vs. Jagannath and Others reported in 2021 (1) MPLJ
302.
10. Per contra , the cross-objection is vehemently opposed by counsel for
appellants. However, in view of law laid down by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Jagannath (supra) , it is fairly conceded that beneficiary of
acquisition, i.e. MPRDC was a necessary party.
11. Accordingly, I.A.No. 3637/2026 is allowed and leave to file cross-
objection is granted.
1 2 . In this appeal, appellant has paid the maximum Court fee of
Rs.1,50,000/-. Similarly, cross-objection vide Document No.2597/2024 has
been filed by respondent against the same Award on the ground that
MPRDC was a necessary party being the beneficiary of the acquisition, but it
was not impleaded.
13. Heard on merits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
3 FA-1424-2023
14. It is fairly conceded by counsel for parties that this Court by a separate
order passed in the case of Sunil Agrawal and Others Vs. State of M.P. and
Others in F.A.No. 1423/2023 has accepted the claim of MPRDC and has held that
MPRDC was the necessary party and has remanded the matter back to the
Reference Court. It is submitted that the case in hand is duly covered by said
order.
15. This Court in the case of Sunil Agrawal (supra) has held as under:-
“This appeal has been filed against Award dated 03/03/2023
passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC
No.23/2016.
2. In this appeal, appellants have paid the maximum Court fee of
Rs.1,50,000/-. Similarly, cross-objection vide Document
No.6248/2024 has been filed by MPRDC, Bhopal against the
same Award on the ground that MPRDC was a necessary party
being the beneficiary of the acquisition, but it was not impleaded.
3. I.A.No.3652/2026 has been filed for amendment.
4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
5. The amendment has been carried out by counsel for MPRDC in
the Court itself after taking due permission.
6 . I.A.No.3650/2026 has been filed seeking leave to file cross-
objection on the ground that although, MPRDC was the necessary
party, but neither it was impleaded as respondent, nor notice of
reference was given either by Collector or by Reference Court.
7. I.A.No.3644/2026, an application has also been filed seeking
exemption from filing an affidavit in support of an application for
grant of leave to file cross-objection.
8. Since it is the case of MPRDC that it was not impleaded as a
party before the Reference Court, and that fact has not been
disputed by counsel for appellants, therefore, requirement of filingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:125774 FA-1424-2023
an affidavit in support of application is hereby waived, and
MPRDC is exempted from filing an affidavit in support of an
application for grant of leave to file cross-objection.
9. Considered I.A. No.3650/2026 .
10. It is the case of MPRDC that being the beneficiary, it is a
necessary party, and to buttress its contention, counsel
for MPRDC has relied upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Road Development
Corporation Vs. Jagannath and Others reported in 2021 (1) MPLJ
302 .
11 . Per contra, the cross-objection is vehemently opposed by
counsel for appellants. However, in view of law laid down by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath (supra) , it is
fairly conceded that beneficiary of acquisition, i.e. MPRDC was a
necessary party.
12. Accordingly, I.A.No. 3650/2026 is allowed, and MPRDC is
permitted to file the cross-objection.
13. Heard on merits.
14. By the impugned award, the compensation amount has been
enhanced, but being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation enhanced by the Reference Court, appellants have
filed an appeal, whereas beneficiary of acquisition has filed a
cross-objection on the ground that it was not impleaded and no
notice was given either by Collector or by Reference Court.
15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath
(supra) has held as under:-
“9. The issue relating to right of the local authority to
participate at the stage of determination of
compensation in the light of provisions contained in
section 50 of the Act has been settled by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter
o f U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:125775 FA-1424-2023
reported in (1995) 2 SCC 326, it has been held that:–
“11. Thus, on an interpretation of the provisions of
section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, it must be concluded that,
subject to the limitation contained in the proviso, a local
authority for whom land is being acquired has a right to
participate in the proceedings for acquisition before the
Collector as well as the reference Court and adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation and the said right imposes an obligation
on the Collector as well as the reference Court to give a
notice to the local authority with regard to the pendency
of those proceedings and the date on which the matter
of determination of amount of compensation would be
taken up. The recognition of this right raises the
question whether the local authority, feeling aggrieved
by the determination of the amount of compensation by
the Collector or the reference Court, can take recourse
to any legal remedy. Before dealing with this question
we would take note of the decisions of this Court have a
bearing on the issue.”
10. The view of the Constitution Bench is clear that the
local authority for whom land is acquired, is entitled to
participate in the proceedings before the Collector and
the reference Court and such local authority is also
entitled to a notice from the Collector and reference
Court at the stage of determination of the amount of
compensation. The Constitution Bench in the above
judgment has further taken note of section 50(2) of the
Act and has held that:–
“20. In a case where no notice is given to the local
authority the position of the local authority is not
different from that of the Municipal Corporation
in Neelgangabai v. State of Karnataka . In that case thereSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:125776 FA-1424-2023
was an express provision in section 20 of L.A. Act as
modified by Land Acquisition (Mysore Extention
Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for service of notice
on the person or local authority for whom the
acquisition is made. On a construction of Section 50(2)
we have found that service of such a notice is implicit in
the right conferred under section 50(2) of the L.A. Act,
Since the failure to give a notice would result in denial
of the right conferred on the local authority under
section 50(2) it would be open to the local authority to
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution to challenge the award made by
the Collector as was done in Neelgangabai case. In a
case where notice has been served on the local authority
and it has appeared before the Collector the local
authority may feel aggrieved on account of it being
denied opportunity to adduce evidence or the evidence
adduced by it having not been considered by the
Collector while making the award or the award being
vitiated by mala fides. Since the amount of the
compensation is to be paid by the local authority and it
has an interest in the determination of the said amount,
which has been given recognition in section 50(2) of the
L.A. Act, the local authority would be a person
aggrieved who can invoke the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the
award in spite of the proviso precluding the local
authority from seeking a reference. Such a challenge
will, however, be limited to the grounds on which
judicial review is permissible under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In a case where the local authority has
failed to appear inspite of service of notice the local
authority can have no cause for grievance. Even in suchSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:125777 FA-1424-2023
a case it may be permissible for the local authority to
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution to assail the award if it is
vitiated by mala fides or is perverse.”
11. The Constitution Bench has culled out the right of
the local authority in this regard as under:–
“24. To sum up, our conclusions are:
1. Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act confers on a local
authority for whom land is being acquired a right to
appear in the acquisition proceedings before the
Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence
for the purpose of determining the amount of
compensation.
2. The said right carries with it the right to be given
adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference
Court before whom acquisition proceedings are pending
of the date on which the matter of determination of
compensation will be taken up.
3. The proviso to section 50(2) only precludes a local
authority from seeking a reference but it does not
deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the
determination of the amount of compensation by the
Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as
the remedies available under the L.A. Act.
4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by
section 50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to
serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local
authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Even when notice has been served on the local
authority the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution would be available to the local authority onSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:125778 FA-1424-2023
grounds on which judicial review is permissible under
Article 226.
6. The local authority is a proper party in the
proceedings before the reference Court and is entitled to
be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it
can defend the determination of the amount of
compensation by the Collector and oppose enhancement
of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that
regard.
7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of
compensation by the reference Court if the Government
does not file an appeal the local authority can file an
appeal against the award in the High Court after
obtaining leave of the Court.
8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land
seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation
awarded by the reference Court the local authority, the
should be impleaded as a party and is entitled to be
served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an
appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court.
9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has
the same right as a local authority under section 50(2),
whatever has been said with regard to a local authority
would apply to a company too.
10. The matters which stand finally concluded will,
however, not be reopened.”
12. In the matter of Neyvely Lignite Corporation
Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely ,
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 221 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that word “person interested”
comprehends the local authority or company for whose
benefit land is acquired. Hence it is a proper party, if not
necessary party, therefore it has a right to participate inSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:125779 FA-1424-2023
the reference proceedings under section 18 or appeal
under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, as also
got the right to file a writ petition before the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been held
that the limited right to lead evidence under section
50(2) of the Act is available.
13. In the matter of Agra Development
Authority v. Special Land Acquisition Officer , reported
in (2001) 2 SCC 646, it has been held that where the
land is acquired at the cost of the local development
authority, then it is mandatory for the Land Acquisition
Officer to issue notice to the said authority and give an
opportunity to adduce evidence while determining the
compensation amount.
14. In the matter of Kanak (Smt.) v. U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 693 it has
again been reiterated that local authority for whose
benefit the land is acquired or who is responsible for
making payment of compensation, is required to be
given notice by the Collector as well as Reference Court
while determining compensation and the exceptions are
that the authority should have knowledge of the
proceedings or the authority has not suffered any prej
udice on account of the failure to give notice. In the
present case the authority had no knowledge of the
reference proceedings or the appeal before this Court
and that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner
because the compensation amount has been enhanced in
these proceedings.
15. In the matter of NTPC Ltd. v. State of Bihar ,
reported in (2004) 12 SCC 96 considering the nature of
right of the authority on whose behalf land is acquired,
it has been held that such authority has not only right to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
10 FA-1424-2023
lead evidence but also has right to support the award
made by the LAO by cross-examining the witnesses led
by the claimants. In the matter of Regional Medical
Research Centre, Tribals v. Gokaran, reported in (2004)
13 SCC 125 considering the meaning of “local authority
or company” as mentioned in section 50 of the Act, it
has been held that the words include a statutory body on
behalf of which land is acquired and it has further been
held that such body should be impleaded and given
notice in the proceedings before the reference Court.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Delhi Development
Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma, reported in 2010
MPLJ Online (S.C.) 7 : (2011) 2 SCC 54 while
considering the section 50(2) of the Act, has held that
the object of the provision is to afford an opportunity to
the local authority or company to participate in the
proceedings for determination of compensation amount
and to show that the claim made by the land owner for
payment of compensation is legally untenable or
unjustified, therefore, notice to the local authority is
necessary. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has set aside the order of the Division Bench of the
High Court and had remanded the matter back to the
reference Court for deciding the reference by giving
fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties including
opportunity to adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.
16. Having regard to the aforesaid position in law, I am
of the opinion that the award passed by the reference
Court under Section 18 of the Act and the order passed
by this Court in First Appeal, without giving any notice
to the petitioner and without the knowledge of the
petitioner, suffers from patent illegality and the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
11 FA-1424-2023
cannot be sustained.”
16. Thus, it is held that MPRDC being the beneficiary of the
acquisition was a necessary party and should have been given an
opportunity to present its case.
17. Since that valuable right was not extended to MPRDC,
therefore, cross-objection filed by MPRDC is hereby allowed, and
the award dated 03/03/2023 passed by First District Judge, Sironj,
District Vidisha in MJC No.23/2016 is hereby set aside, and the
matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to decide the
quantum of compensation afresh after giving an opportunity of
hearing to MPRDC also.
18. It is made clear that so far as the quantum of compensation,
which was adjudicated by the Reference Court by the impugned
award is concerned, the land owners have also filed their appeal
therefore, appellants shall also be free to re-agitate about the
quantum of compensation as desired by them, and in case if such a
plea raised, then it shall be decided by the Reference Court
without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the findings
recorded in the impugned award.
19. Since matter has been remanded back on the ground of non-
impleadment of necessary party and the case of appellants has not
been considered on merits, therefore, Court fee paid by appellants
is directed to be refunded, and if an application is filed by
appellants for refund of Court fee, then the same shall be refunded
and credited in the account of appellants.
20. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court
on 14/05/2026 .
21. No fresh notice will be required to be issued to MPRDC.
22. In case if MPRDC fails to appear on 14/05/2026, then it shall
be presumed that it has nothing to say in the matter, and the
Reference Court shall be free to decide the matter afresh after
proceeding ex-parte against MPRDC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
12 FA-1424-2023
23. Since acquisition was done in the year 2011, therefore, the
Reference Court shall try to conclude the reference proceedings
within a period of nine months from 14/05/2026.
24. With aforesaid observation, this first appeal is finally disposed
of.”
16. Thus, it is held that MPRDC being the beneficiary of the
acquisition was a necessary party and should have been given an opportunity
to present its case.
17. Since that valuable right was not extended to MPRDC, therefore,
cross-objection filed by MPRDC is hereby allowed, and the award dated
03/03/2023 passed by First District Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in MJC
No.14/2016 is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the
Reference Court to decide the quantum of compensation afresh after giving
an opportunity of hearing to MPRDC also.
18. It is made clear that so far as the quantum of compensation, which
was adjudicated by the Reference Court by the impugned award is
concerned, the land owners have also filed their appeal therefore, appellants
shall also be free to re-agitate about the quantum of compensation as desired
by them, and in case if such a plea raised, then it shall be decided by the
Reference Court without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the
findings recorded in the impugned award.
19. Since matter has been remanded back on the ground of non-
impleadment of necessary party and the case of appellants has not been
considered on merits, therefore, Court fee paid by appellants is directed to be
refunded, and if an application is filed by appellants for refund of Court fee,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12577
13 FA-1424-2023
then the same shall be refunded and credited in the account of appellants.
20. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on
14/05/2026.
21. No fresh notice will be required to be issued to MPRDC.
22. In case if MPRDC fails to appear on 14/05/2026, then it shall be
presumed that it has nothing to say in the matter, and the Reference Court
shall be free to decide the matter afresh after proceeding ex-parte
against MPRDC.
23. Since acquisition was done in the year 2011, therefore, the
Reference Court shall try to conclude the reference proceedings within a
period of nine months from 14/05/2026.
24. With aforesaid observation, this first appeal is finally disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRINCEE
BARAIYA
Signing time: 4/23/2026
03:49:30 PM