Headline: Court Orders Attachment of SDM’s Property for Failure to Compensate Landowners

In a significant development, a court in Vidisha district has taken decisive action against a sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) for failing to comply with an order to compensate individuals whose land was acquired for road construction back in 2011. The court’s decision to attach the SDM’s chair and other official movable properties comes after a prolonged legal battle initiated by five landowners who claimed they were not adequately compensated for their acquired land.

Last year, these individuals, including a farmer, brought their grievances to the district court at Sironj, contending that they had not received fair compensation for the land acquired nearly a decade ago. District Judge Surendra Meshram, in a ruling issued in March 2024, provided government authorities with a final opportunity to fulfill the court’s compensation order, as highlighted by Kapil Tyagi, one of the petitioners and a lawyer involved in the case.

However, with the authorities failing to adhere to the court’s directive, Judge Meshram, on April 23, issued a consequential order to attach movable property, including the SDM’s chair, furniture, and computers, from the office of Harshal Chaudhary, the SDM of Sironj, according to advocate Tyagi.

Tyagi further emphasized that if the compensation remains outstanding, they would proceed to file a plea seeking the attachment of the defendants’ immovable property. The defendants in this case include the district administration and the MP Road Development Corporation (MPRDC).

The dispute arises from the acquisition of land belonging to a total of 82 individuals by the MPRDC for the construction of a 1.5 km road in Sironj back in 2011. Subsequently, several landowners opted to pursue legal recourse, alleging inadequate compensation for their relinquished land, Tyagi explained.

This latest development underscores the importance of timely and fair compensation in land acquisition processes, as mandated by law. It also serves as a reminder of the legal recourse available to individuals who believe their rights have been infringed upon during such transactions. The court’s firm stance in attaching the SDM’s property underscores the gravity of non-compliance with court orders and emphasizes the principle of accountability in the administration of justice.

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!