MP HC Directs Ujjain Corporation To Pay Compensation For Bridge Land, Orders Families To Vacate In Two Weeks

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench has directed the Ujjain Municipal Corporation to pay compensation to a group of families set to be displaced for the construction of a four-lane railway over bridge at Hari Fatak, even as it ordered the families to vacate the land within two weeks.

A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order on September 2 while disposing of twelve connected writ appeals filed by residents challenging their eviction from the site.

The appellants, led by Shailendra Teji and including Dilip, Suresh, Kamla Sarvan, Ram Kanya Bai, Seema Tanwar, Savitribai, Chanda Bai Sarwan, Nathibai, Chetram, Suraj Teji and Rakesh Khokar, had approached the court against a single writ court order that rejected their plea to be protected from dispossession without compensation. They had argued that any eviction had to be preceded by compensation under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They had also challenged a May 4 order directing them to vacate their residential premises within ten days.

Appearing for the appellants, advocate Tehjeeb Khan told the court that his clients did not dispute the need to acquire the land, which is required for the Hari Fatak bridge project, but contended that the eviction drive had actually been initiated by the Municipal Corporation at the instance of the M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MPRDC), and that compensation therefore had to come from MPRDC under the 2013 Act.

Advocate General Prashant Singh, appearing for MPRDC along with Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena and advocate Anvesh Shrivastava, told the bench that MPRDC was equally concerned about ensuring proper compensation, though it could not go beyond statutory limits. He offered to deposit Rs 10 crore with the court's Registry as a guarantee, and pointed out that MPRDC had already deposited Rs 4,81,66,544 with the Collector, Ujjain, towards the acquisition. He also submitted that of the twelve appellants, only five held sale deeds on which, he said, they had "illegally raised the construction" while the remaining seven had only a lease deed or patta.

Advocate Rishi Tiwari, appearing for the Ujjain Municipal Corporation, told the court that a notice under Section 305 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 had already been issued, and that the Corporation was willing to pay compensation as per the Collector's guidelines. He added that if the appellants remained aggrieved, the law itself provided a remedy under Section 387 of the 1956 Act, which draws on the compensation framework of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Recording that counsel for the appellants had, "in principal," conceded that the land was needed for Ujjain's development ahead of the Simhastha-2028 event, the bench held that the only real dispute now left was over the quantum of compensation. It observed that it did not doubt "the financial capacity of the MPRDC, or their intention to pay the compensation," and that with the Corporation also ready to pay as per the Collector's guidelines, the appellants' remedy against any shortfall lay in the arbitration mechanism under Section 387, which incorporates the compensation principles of the 2013 Act.

The court accordingly directed the Municipal Corporation to pay the compensation as agreed within a week, while also directing that "the petitioners/appellants are also directed to vacate the premises and handover the possession to the Officers of the Municipal Corporation within the aforesaid period of two weeks." It clarified that the appellants remained free to challenge the adequacy of the compensation under Section 387 of the 1956 Act if they were dissatisfied with the amount eventually paid.

With these directions, the bench disposed of Writ Appeals arising from the same dispute.

Case Title: Shailendra Teji vs. Ujjain Municipal Corporation and Others with connected appeals

Judgment Date: September 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi