Back
2000(3) Supreme 37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
A.P. Misra & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Raipur Development Authority -Appellant
versus
Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 1989
Decided on 30-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Anup B. Choudhary and A.K. Sanghi Advocates.
For the Respondents : R. Ramachandran, S.K. Gambhir, Raja Chatterjee, Sakesh Kumar, Sachin Das, G.S. Chatterjee, S.K. Agnihotri Advocates.
Held : It is not disputed that there are two publications under sub-section (2) in the M.P. Gazette, one is dated 30.3.1985 and the other is dated 6.9.1985. Both the aforesaid gazette publications record intent of the appellant to prepare town development scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 50. It is not revealed from the records as to why two such publications were made for the same purpose on two different dates. Still on these facts question that arises for our consideration is, as to what would be the starting point for computing the period of two years. In our considered opinion, it would not have any ill consequential effect on the appellants, on account of two such application. Any intention even if published under sub-section (2) of Section 50 if it is made to lapse, not proceeded with for any reason and for some reasons another such publication is made, in the absence of any embargo under the Act or Rules to which we have not been pointed, it would not invalidate this second such publication. In other words, even if after publication of the first intention, either it is given a go-by or otherwise on rethinking, if another such intention is published it would be a valid notice when it is published under sub-section (2). If that be so, the period of limitation would start from the later such publication. In the present case it would be 6.9.1985. If appellants were persuing its draft scheme only in pursuance to the publication made on 30.3.1985, the question of limitation would have gained relevant and valid consideration but when it published another such intend subsequently, the period has to be from this later publication. Admittedly the publication under sub-section (3) of Section 50 was made on 4.9.1987 which is within period of two years from the date of the publication dated 6.9.1985 under sub-section (2). Thus the draft scheme cannot be held to be invalid on this score. (Para 9)
(ii) M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973-Section 50(3) r/w M.P. Town and Country Development Rules-Rule 18(1) and (2)-Draft Development Scheme-Period of limitation for publication-Computation of-Publication when would be complete-For computing period of two years, the moment it is published in Official Gazette it is to be taken to be date of publication u/s 50(3)-Delay in publication in local news papers or simultaneous publication both in Gazette and local Hindi news paper would not invalidate Draft Scheme-Publication would be complete the moment it is published in Gazette. (Paras 10 to 16)
(iii) Interpretation of Statutes-Hydons s principle-When two interpretations possible, one which sub-serve to the intent of legislature is to be adopted. (Para 14)
(iv) M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973-Section 29 r/w Section 30(5)-Permission for development of land by private persons-Deemed permission-Respondent society filing application seeking permission on 2.6.1986-Authority under Act making several communications seeking certain informations-No response from respondent-Communication dated 9.9.1986 that case was closed and filed-No deemed permission on expiry of 60 days of application in view of proviso to sub-section (5)-High Court erred in holding that respondent secured deemed permission to develop land. (Paras 5 to 7)
JUDGMENT
Misra, J.-The appellant raises the question of interpretation of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973, (for short the Act ) read with Rule 18 of the M.P. Town and Country Development Rules 1975 (for short the Rules ).
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1988 of the High Court, which allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 1, by quashing the draft scheme for the development in respect of some of the villages including Shankar Nagar of Raipur, to which we are concerned, published under Section 50(3) of the Act in M.P. Gazette dated 4.9.1987/11.9.1987 and by holding in his favour deemed permission under Section 30(5) of the Act to develop its land.
3. We now hereby give some of the bare factual matrix to appreciate the controversies in this appeal. The appellant is a statutory authority under the Act. The respondent No. 1 is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the M.P. Cooperative Housing Act, 1960. The aforesaid 1973 Act has been enacted to make provisions for planning, development and use of land for proper development, with a view to ensure that town planning schemes are made effectively under Chapter IV of the Act. The State Government through notification constitutes planning areas and defines its limit. Section 14 enjoins the Director to prepare a development plan. Such development plan is sanctioned by the State Government, which for the Raipur city was sanctioned on or before 9.9.1976. Chapter VI deals with control, development and use of land. Under Section 24, the overall control, development and use of land vests in the State Government subject to the rules framed under the Act. Section 25 enjoins, the use and development of the land must conform to the provisions of the sanctioned development plan, Section 26 prohibits development of any land without the permission in writing of the Director. Section 27 refers to the development undertaken by the Union or the State Government. Section 28 refers to the development undertaken by a local body or any authority constituted under the Act, while Section 29 refers to the development of the land by any other person. Section 30 empowers the Director to grant permission conditionally, unconditionally or refuse permission while sub-section (5) refers to a case, where the authority fails to communicate his order on one s application under Section 29 for development within 60 days of its making, then permission would be deemed to have been granted after expiring of the said period. Under Section 50(1), the Town and Country Development Authority may, at any time, declare its intention to prepare a town development scheme which may be published within thirty days thereafter under sub-section (2). Under sub-section (3) the draft scheme is to be published within two years of the publication under sub-section (2), in the form and the manner as prescribed under Rule 18 and within 30 days of this publication, objections and suggestions could be filed before the concerned authority who has to consider and decide the same and make if any consequential modifications. From the date of the final publication of the scheme under sub-section (7), restrictions are imposed for the use and development of the land by virtue of Section 53, which has to be only in accordance with the development authorised by the Director under Section 54.
4. Respondent s case in the writ petition before the High Court was that its society provides for its members who belong to economically weaker section, plots for the construction of houses. It purchased 25 acres of agricultural land in Shankar Nagar, Circle No. 1, in the year 1985-86. This was purchased, since the State Government through its policy decision dated 30.10.1981 decided to encourage housing societies to construct houses in towns of over two lacs of population. It stipulated, 25 of the available land was to be given to the housing societies f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
