SC dismisses plea against MP HC order in land acquisition matter for Mahakal Lok Parishar

NEw new delhi, The sublime margaret court on th refused to think of a petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings for extending the parking space of the Mahakal Lok Parishar in Ujjain.A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a plea against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's January 11 order which dismissed a petition against the land acquisition proceedings.On November 7, the apex court dismissed a separate plea challenging an order that rejected a petition seeking directions for the reconstruction of a mosque in Ujjain, which was demolished following the land acquisition proceedings.The Takiya Masjid, stated to be established around 200 years ago, was demolished in January after the land on which it was built was acquired.Authorities had initiated the land acquisition proceedings in order to expand the parking space of the Mahakal Lok Parishar.During the hearing on Thursday, the counsel appearing for the petitioner said the mandatory provision for social impact assessment before initiating the land acquisition proceedings was not done in the matter."You are simply occupants," the bench said, adding the petitioner was not the owner of the land.The bench refused to entertain the plea challenging the high court's order.In that order, a division bench of the high court had dealt with an appeal against a December 2024 order which dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging the award.Before the high court's division bench, the petitioners had argued that the state government had not come up with the rehabilitation and resettlement of petitioners who were residing on the acquired land for last 30 years.It was argued that the amount of compensation paid to them was not sufficient for their settlement and rehabilitation.The counsel appearing for the state had argued before the high court that the entire project of development of Mahakal Parishar was held up because of these limited appellants as they had not vacated the acquired land even after acceptance of compensation."The writ court has already granted the liberty to them to challenge the award under section 64 of Act, 2013, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order," the division bench had said.Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, deals with reference to authority.The division bench had said the petitioners were granted 30 days time to seek a reference before the competent authority, but instead of filing the reference, they had come up with the appeal and the 30 days time had already expired."In the interest of justice, we hereby grant a further 30 days' time to approach the authority," it had said.It had also granted seven days to the petitioners to vacate and remove the structures safely.This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.