Judgment :-

Leave granted. Mr. T. Mahipal, learned counsel appears on caveat for respondents 1 and

2. Respondents 3 and 4 being proforma parties, insofar as the present appeal is concerned, notice to them is dispensed. Heard the learned counsel. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 23-A of the Nagar Tathagram Vinesh Adhiniyam 1973, as amended by Act No.22 of 2005, and challenging the notification dated 19.11.2003 issued by the State Government regarding change of use of land and certain consequential reliefs.

3. It would appear that the writ petition was listed on several occasions. However, as it could not be finally disposed of, a Division Bench of the High Court on 9.10.2009 passed the impugned interim order permitting the writ petitioners (respondents 1 and 2) to construct at their own risk, a restaurant, Banquet Hall etc., in seven acres of land granted by the appellant-Authority to them on licence basis for running a children's amusement park. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-Authority has filed this appeal by special leave.

4. Among several contentions on merits, the Authority has