IBC / Resolution Plan · F2J-C-2844
Keshav Prasad Jayaswal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
VALIDATED · ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTSource transparency: The local PDF is an actual court document retained from the complete public source. The official court portal is recorded separately. Verify the official record and subsequent history before reliance.
Holding (ratio)
Claims omitted from an approved resolution plan stand extinguished, and a welfare-oriented rehabilitation policy or private commitment cannot override IBC finality. The independent eligibility finding against the claimant also remained valid.
Operative order (extract)
7 WP-4668-2011 law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 ; Sohanlal vs. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529, State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh AIR 1992 SC 1018. (12) Consequently, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order of the Collector, Singrouli dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-P/11) passed in 44/A-74/2010- 11. (13) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Scope limits
The holding is confined to the issues actually decided in the retained judgment; no view is attributed to the court on questions expressly left open or remanded.
Sources and completeness
- PDF status
- Complete searchable public court copy, retained unchanged
- PDF origin
- Downloaded unchanged from the complete public court-copy source
- PDF pages
- 7
- Extracted words
- 2,256
- PDF SHA-256
f2f4739594a8136c9a18a771c087cecc84b7ee40f965511f43e382e3d7fe92da
Complete searchable judgment text
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
1 WP-4668-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 15 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 4668 of 2011
KESHAV PRASAD JAYASWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Prasad Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ritwik Parashar - G.A. along with Shri Manoj Jha - P.L. for the
respondents/State.
Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Sahil Sonkusale -
Advocate for the respondent no.5.
ORDER
The present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-P/11)
passed in Case No.44/A-74/2010-11 by the Collector, Singrouli whereby, the
representation of the petitioner for grant of benefits in furtherance of the
Rehabilitation Policy of the Government of Madhya Pradesh titled as 'Madhya
Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002' and agreement dated 05.9.2007 and
18.10.2008 was rejected.
(2) The petitioner has asked for the following reliefs :-
"i) To quash the order impugned Annexure P/11 passed by the
respondent no.1.
ii) To issue direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of
displaced persons to the petitioner individually subject to grant of
residential plot measuring 60 x 90 = 5400 sqfts. and other benefits in
lieu of the lands of the petitioner acquired by the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
2 WP-4668-2011
iii) To issue direction to the respondents to grant the service of the
petitioner or one family member of each and every petitioner as per
rehabilitation policy.
iv) To issue direction to the respondents to declare petitioner as
displaced person and issue certificate regarding the same and providing
compensation according to rehabilitation policy.
v) To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
(3) The exposition of facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :-
(A) The petitioner is a resident of Village Khairahi in Tahsil and District
Singrouli. His land and house were acquired for respondent no.2 -Essar
Power M.P. Limited. There was an agreement between respondents no.1 and
2 regarding acquisition of land at Village Bandoura on 05.9.2007. Later, the
respondent no.2 made an agreement with the resident of Village Karsualal,
Khairahi, Nagma and Bandhoura on 03.4.2008 and finally, the respondent
no.2 executed final agreement with respondent no.1 regarding acquisition of
agricultural land as well as residential land falling in Village Karsualal,
Khairahi, Nagma and Bandhoura on 18.08.2008 (Annexures- P/6, P/7 and
P/8). The respondents have acquired agricultural land and residential house
of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for benefits as displaced
person.
(B) The Government of Madhya Pradesh Rehabilitation Department
published a policy titled as 'Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002'
(for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Policy'). As per para- 8.1 of the
Policy, every displaced person shall be entitled to get 5,400 sq. ft. of land for
residential purpose. The petitioner had applied for grant of benefits as per the
said Policy but no decision was taken by the respondents no.1 and 2,
therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a
direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner
according to the Rehabilitation Policy vide order dated 23.6.2010 passed in
Writ Petition No.7584/2010. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the
representation to the respondent no.1 but the Collector,
Singrouli, vide impugned order dated 29.10.10, dismissed the representation
of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is not a resident of the place
acquired by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
3 WP-4668-2011
Act (for brevity, 'the Act'). The petitioner has constructed the house within
the acquired area after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act,
therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the facts and grounds
mentioned in the writ petition, submits that the petitioner is a resident of Village
Khairahi. His land and house fall within the area acquired in furtherance of the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector, Singrouli committed
an error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner for grant of benefit
of 'Madhya Pradesh Ki Adarsh Punarvas Niti, 2002'.
(5) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State contends that
the Collector, Singrouli, on the basis of fact finding inquiry and inspection report
and after according an opportunity of hearing concluded that there was no
residential house in the name of the petitioner at Village Bandhoura. The
petitioner's name was not reflected in the voter list of the Village Bandhoura at the
relevant time. Rather, the petitioner was residing in a house at Village Khairahi
along with his family. The petitioner has constructed a tin shade after issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the Act therefore, the petitioner does not fall within
the definition of 'Displaced Person' under clause 2.1(a) of the policy. Thus, the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
(6) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 contends that the present
writ petition was instituted against the respondent no.2 - The Chief Executive
Officer, Essar Power M.P. Ltd. claiming reliefs in furtherance of the
Rehabilitation Policy. During the pendency of the writ petition, M/s Essar Power
M.P. Ltd. underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity, 'IBC'). The resolution plan
submitted by M/s Adani Power Limited was approved by the National Company
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
4 WP-4668-2011
Law Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2021. After approval of the resolution plan
the corporate debtor M/s Essar Power M.P. Ltd. is converted to M/s Mahan
Energen Ltd. (respondent no. 4). Learned counsel referring to Section 31.1 of the
IBC submits that the approved resolution plan is binding on the corporate debtors,
creditors, government authorities and all stakeholders therefore, all non-plan
liabilities stands extinguished by operation of law. Learned counsel also refers to
the judgment in the cases of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited
v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531; Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt.
Ltd. v. Edelweiss ARC, (2021) 9 SCC 657; Ajay Kumar Radheshyam Goenka v.
Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 545; Electosteel Steel
Ltd. v. Ispat Carrier (P) Ltd. (2025) SCC OnLine SC 829, JSW Steel Limited v.
Pratishtha Thakur Haritwal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 672, to contend that 'clean-
slate doctrine' under section 31(1) of IBC is mandatory. The non-plan liabilities
cannot be enforced against new corporate debtors post resolution. Therefore, the
writ petition cannot be prosecuted for any relief against respondent no.2 and
respondent no. 4.
(7) Section 31(1) of IBC provides as under :-
"31(1) Approved Resolution Plan is binding on corporate debtor,
creditors, government authorities, and all stakeholders.
All non-plan claims/liabilities stand extinguished by operation of law."
Section 238 of IBC provides as under :-
"238. Code overrides any State enactment, policy, executive
instruction, or prior administrative/judicial order."
(8) The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the scope of Sections 3(6),
31 and 238 of IBC as also Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India in the matter
of Mahan Energen Limited vs. State of M.P. vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed
in Writ Petition No.4131/2012 has observed as under :-
"23. So the scheme of the IBC, as exposed by the Judgment of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
5 WP-4668-2011
Hon’ble Apex Court is that whatever claim decided, undecided should
be putforth before the Committee after due publication under Section
15 of the proposed resolution plan. As in the present case in hand, it
seems that neither the erstwhile corporate debtor has placed undecided
claim, which is pending in the writ petition before the Committee nor
the respondents have placed the said claim before the Committee,
therefore, there was no occasion for the resolution applicant to know
such a liability. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
pending liability under adjudication cannot be fastened on a resolution
applicant without it being placed before the adjudicating authority after
due invitation of claims against the proposed action under Section 15
thereafter when the application is approved under Section 31."
Thus, after approval of resolution plan by National Company Law Tribunal,
the plan is binding on the corporate debtors as well as on the State government or
local authorities under any law enforced including statutory dues. The approval of
resolution plan, submitted by M/s Adani Power for respondent Essar Power M.P.
Ltd, on 1.11.2021 by the National Company Law Tribunal triggers statutory
'Clean Slate Doctrine'. It is trite law that 'Clean Slate' in furtherance of the
resolution plan is not a mere formality but a statutory contingency. In Committee
of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held that a successful
resolution plan cannot be confronted with undecided or 'hydra-head' claims of pre-
resolution stage, after the plan is accepted.
(9) I n Ghanashyam Mishra (supra ), the Supreme Court held that the claims
provided in the approved resolution plan stand frozen and bind everyone including
State government and local authorities. The claims which are not a part of the
resolution plan stand extinguished on the date of approval of resolution plan by
the National Company Law Tribunal, hence, no person may initiate or continue
proceedings in respect of a claim that is not a part of the resolution plan. Thus,
Rehabilitation policy or any agreement with project affected (displaced) person
cannot facilitate claim as an exception for the reason that it is welfare
oriented. Section 238 of IBC gives Insolvency and Bankrupcy Code overriding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
6 WP-4668-2011
effect over all inconsistent laws and policies. The agreements dated 05.09.2007
(Annexure-P/6) and dated 18.10.2008 (Annexure-P/8) were executed between the
Collector & District Rehabilitation Officer, Singrouli and Chief Executive Officer
of Essar Power M.P. Ltd. prior to approval of resolution plan by NCLT.
(10) In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the relief as claimed is not executable against respondent no.2 - Essar Power M.P.
Ltd. and respondent no.4 - Mahan Energen Ltd.
(11) Now, the execution of relief against respondents no.1 and 3/State is
considered. The Collector, Singrouli, in furtherance of the order dated 27.04.2026
passed in W.P. No.4131/2012 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court extended
opportunity of filing representation and hearing to the petitioner and call for the
status report from the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, Singrouli.
The Sub-Divisional Officer conducted spot inspection recorded the statement of
the witnesses and submitted the report. The petitioner was accorded opportunity of
hearing. Thereafter, the Collector, on consideration of definition of 'displaced
person' under clause-2.1(a) of the Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2002 and the
report of Sub-Divisional Officer, concluded that the petitioner does not fall within
category of 'displaced person' for the reason that he is not residing for one year
before 09.6.2007 within the area under acquisition. The conclusion of Collector,
Singrouli is based on the material on record. There is no apparent error in the
proceedings of the Collector, Singrouli. Hence, no jurisdictional error is made out
for invocation of supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is trite law that this Court while exercising extra-ordinary
writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not
exercise the appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the merits of material in view of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:71880
7 WP-4668-2011
law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another
v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 ; Sohanlal vs. Union of India, AIR
1957 SC 529, State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh AIR 1992 SC 1018.
(12) Consequently, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order of the
Collector, Singrouli dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure-P/11) passed in 44/A-74/2010-
11.
(13) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
P
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRIYANKA
PITHAWE
Signing time: 17-09-2026
18:10:50
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the controlling court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history.