Differential Treatment Violates Equality: MP High Court Orders Land Release in IDA Scheme

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a stinging rebuke to statutory development authorities for adopting a 'pick and choose' policy, ruling that the selective application of land release criteria among similarly situated owners constitutes a fatal violation of the Right to Equality. In a significant intervention, the Court held that once a development authority records prior planning approvals and construction for one scheme, it cannot arbitrarily deny the same benefit to identical land parcels in an adjacent scheme without a rational, record-based distinction.

A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt presided over a challenge brought by landholders against the Indore Development Authority (IDA) regarding the acquisition of lands in Village Kumedi. The petitioners sought a declaration that acquisition proceedings for Scheme No. 139 had lapsed and contested the IDA's refusal to release their land despite similar relief being granted to them for adjoining parcels in Scheme No. 169-A.

Court's Observations on Discriminatory Treatment

The Court observed that the petitioners possessed planning approvals, diversion orders, and Gram Panchayat sanctions dating back to 1997-98, which predated the acquisition notifications. While the IDA had released their adjoining lands in Scheme No. 169-A based on these very documents, it had rejected the claim for Scheme No. 139.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The IDA, having any doubt, then at that point of time, it should have called the original files from the record of the concerned Authority and therefore, in view of section 53 of the Adhiniyam 1973 and considering the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., the Supreme Court explained the statutory scheme and the relevance of development authorised before a scheme declaration under Section 53. Also the matter is required to be considered by considering the Constitution of India, 1950, it does not permit IDA to apply lawful release criteria selectively. In Hari Ram v. State of Haryana ( "(2010) 3 SCC 621": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 170), the Supreme Court held that similarly situated landowners cannot be treated differently in the matter of release without a rational basis. The judgment delivered in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ( "(1974) 4 SCC 3": 1973 CaseBase(SC) 114), confirms that arbitrariness is inconsistent with equality."

The Court further noted that taking a "hyper-technical view" regarding the absence of formal Section 30 permissions, while ignoring the fact that the process was initiated prior to the cut-off date, amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power.

Directions Issued to the Indore Development Authority

The Court has the following directions:

"...let the concerned respondent / Authority may consider the case of the petitioners for the land bearing Survey nos. 25/2/5, 25/2/6 and 25/2/7 situated at Village - Kumedi, Tehsil- Sanwer. District-Indore of Scheme no. 139 for releasing and keeping outside the Scheme by doing necessary formalities and if required, give possession back to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

Background

The dispute originated when the IDA framed Scheme No. 139 in 1997. The petitioners, owners of lands in Village Kumedi, had obtained various development and building approvals between 1997 and 1998. The State initiated acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2002, culminating in an award in 2004. In a separate development, the IDA released the petitioners' adjoining land in Scheme No. 169-A in 2010, recognizing their prior construction and permissions. However, the IDA rejected a similar representation for Scheme No. 139 in 2015.

The petitioners initially challenged the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, which was dismissed. They subsequently filed the present writ petition arguing that the IDA's refusal to apply the same release criteria used in Scheme No. 169-A to Scheme No. 139 was discriminatory. The IDA contended that the two schemes had different land uses and that formal Section 30 permissions were lacking.

The Court relied on Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board to clarify that res judicata did not bar the Article 14 challenge. Citing Chief Executive Officer, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Director, State of M.P. and others and Ujjain Development Authority v. Smt. Geeta Totla, the Court reiterated that prior sanctions must be protected. The Court ultimately allowed the petitions, directing the IDA to reconsider the land for release to maintain parity with its earlier decisions.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No. 24156 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:30224
Case Title: Shambhudayal Agrawal (Deceased) Through Lr 1. Kailashchand Agrawal And Anr Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Naman Jain - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Kushagra Singh - Govt. Advocate; Shri Ambar Pare - Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36535