SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 625

2005(3) Supreme 650
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Mrs. Ruma Pal & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Indore Development Authority —Appellant
versus
Shrikrishna Oil Mills & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2547 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13977/2002)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2548, 2549, 2550, 2551, 2552 and 2553 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14597, 15378, 15437, 16691 of 2002, 621 and 622 of 2003)
Decided on 12-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Gambhir, Sr. Advocate, B.K. Sharma, Awanish Sinha and Sanjay Kapur, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M.N. Krishnamani, Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocates, B.S. Banthia, R.N. Keshwani, Ram Lal Roy, K.V. Vishwanathan, Anand, Abhisth Kumar, D. Bharat Kumar, Abhijit Sengupta, Satish K. Agnihotri, Rohit K. Singh and Amit Mishra, Advocates.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960—Section 48(1)—Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973—Town Development Scheme—Challenged as not in accordance with law—Scheme No. 78 was prepared by the Improvement Trust under the Improvement Trust Act—Objections were filed before the Development Authority was established under the Adhiniyam and the ­Improvement Trust was dissolved—Fresh objections were filed again—Scheme was approved after consideration of objections by the Indore Development Authority—Scheme was then approved, finalized and published in local newspapers as well as in the Government Gazette—Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were also issued—Whether Scheme No. 78 prepared and approved by the Indore Development Authority can be held legal, valid and in accordance with law—(Yes).

       Held : In the present case, procedure under the Adhiniyam was also followed by the authorities. Notices were issued, objections were submitted and hearing was afforded to the affected persons and thereafter the decision was taken. As already noted in Madan Lal, this Court reserved liberty to the Development Authority to invite objections and suggestions against Scheme No. 72 and allowed the authority to take appropriate decision according to law after affording hearing to the objectors. Since in this case, the said procedure was followed, objections were submitted by the affected parties to the Development Authority, they were considered and the scheme was approved after extending opportunity of hearing to them, the provisions of the Adhiniyam had been complied with so also the principles of nature justice were observed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents was illegal or unlawful. As the revisional authority did not think it fit to interfere with the decision of the Development Authority, it approved the action of the Authority and dismissed the revision. Consequently, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued and published in accordance with law. Those actions also cannot be termed illegal. We, therefore, see no substance in the contentions of the respondents that Scheme No. 78 was illegal or unlawful. (Para 23)

Judgment

C.K. Thakker, J.—Leave granted.

2. In all these appeals, common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in several writ petitions is questioned by the Indore Development Authority. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners - contesting respondents herein - and quashed and set aside the notification dated April 5, 1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notification dated January 23, 1984 issued under Section 6 of the said Act as also an order dated August 10, 1998 passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Bhopal.

3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present batch of appeals, relevant facts may be stated.

4. The petitioners challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Town Development Scheme No. 78 prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust Act”) in accordance with the Master Plan of Indore. The case of the petitioners before the High Court was that a resolution was passed on November 9, 1976 being Resolution No. 196 for framing Scheme No. 78 by the Improvement Trust. A notification under Section 46 of the Trust Act was issued on January 7, 1977 inviting objections against the scheme within sixty days of the publication of the notice. Individual notices to the affected persons as required under sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Trust Act were also issued. The petitioners and others filed objections on July 1, 1977. It may, however, be stated here at this stage that on March 16, 1973, Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam”) was brought into force. Under the Trust Act, it was the Improvement Trust which was to consider such objections. Under the Adhiniyam, however, the Development Authority was to consider objections. Though the Adhiniyam came into force in 1973, the Indore Development Authority was established under the Adhiniyam only on July 13, 1977 and the Improvement Trust was dissolved. In view of the establishment of Indore Development Authority, a notice was issued on August 22, 1977 to the objectors with regard to the objections raised by them against Scheme No. 78. It was stated that hearing would be held on August 31, 1977. Pursuant to the said notice, objections were once again filed by the petitioners and other objectors on September 3, 1977. All those objections were then considered by the Development Authority on that day, i.e. September 3, 1977. On January 20, 1978, the Scheme was approved vide notification No. 64 in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Adhiniyam. The Scheme was published in two local newspapers, “Nai Duniya” on February 2, 1978 and in “Dainik Jagran” on February 3, 1978. It was also published in the Official Gazette on February 10, 1978. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on April 5, 1983 and was published in the Official Gazette on April 29, 1983. A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on January 23, 1984 and was published in the Official Gazette on March 9, 1984. A notice was issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioners asking them to hand over possession of property. A petition was, therefore, filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh being M.P.No. 552 of 1986 challenging the notifications. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioners to approach revisional authority, viz. Director, Town and Country Planning under Section 51 of the Adhiniyam. It appears that the Indore Development Authority was of the view that there was gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 226 of the Constitution inasmuch as though the scheme was approved in January 1978, the petition was filed in 1986. It, t
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top