1. Layout plan modification — Commercial to residential use — Challenge to approval under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHARAD A. BOBDE, CJI., S. ABDUL NAZEER, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VIJAY BODANA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 1998 of 2020 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26834 of 2017)
Decided on : 04-03-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Normally opposition and prejudice should not be presumed.
Permissibility of modification of layout plan as per statutory provisions, delay and laches and creation of third party rights are important factors to be considered.
Normally opposition and prejudice should not be presumed.
Permissibility of modification of layout plan as per statutory provisions, delay and laches and creation of third party rights are important factors to be considered.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Use and Town Planning
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition filed after 7 years to challenge modification of layout plan - Provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 permitting such modification - During the 7 years third party rights created in accordance with modified layout plan - Necessary party viz Indore Municipal Corporation not impleaded - High Court allowing writ petition ignoring these factors and invoking promissory estoppel that layout plan once sanctioned has to be adhered to - Not sustainable. (Para 8)
(b) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Normally opposition and prejudice should not be presumed. (Para 9)
(c) Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - Sections 17, 21 and 49 - Layout plan can be modified provided it does not contravenes the Zonal and Development plans - Land in appellant’s layout plan marked for commercial complex - No takers even after 21 years - Appellant seeking modification of layout plan converting part of land marked for commercial complex into residential - Authorities approving modification - No error. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-board had developed the colony 'Indira Nagar' over an area of 32 hectares in Ujjain, as per the layout plan sanctioned by the T&CP on 11th September 1981. After the colony had been in existence for about 23 years the appellant-board had made an application for changing the land use of 1.52 hectares earmarked for commercial shopping complex in the original layout plan to residential accommodation. However, the request for amendment was rejected by the Deputy Director, T&CP and the appeal was also dismissed. On the revision petition the State Government clarified the legal position that the appellant-board had not asked for a change in land use and had asked for a modification of the layout plan approved by the T&CP which was permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. The appellant-board, it was directed, could submit the proposal for modification before the Commissioner, Ujjain for reconsideration. Thereupon, the Commissioner, Ujjain had directed the Deputy Director, T&CP to re-examine the request for modification and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to this order, the Deputy Director, T&CP approved the modified layout plan.
The impugned judgment allows the writ petition, which was preferred by the first and second respondents after nearly seven years in 2015. Applying the principle of promissory estoppel, it has been held that the appellant-board must develop the land according to the original plan shown to the allottees at the time of purchase. Further, Ujjain Municipal Corporation was not heard and had no opportunity to represent the case as to the change in the layout plan.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in relying on principle of promissory estoppel ignoring permissibility of modification of layout plan, delay and laches and creation of third party rights.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.C. Mishra, Mahindra Kumar, Ananya Mishra, Ilin Saraswat, Swati Jain, Balkrishan, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advocates
For the Respondent:Divyakant Lahoti, Amrita Grover, Parikshit Ahuja, Praveena Bisht, Madhur, Vindhya Mehra, Kartik Lahoti, Rahul Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Appellant :R.C. Mishra, Mahindra Kumar, Ananya Mishra, Ilin Saraswat, Swati Jain, Balkrishan, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Advocates
For the Respondent:Divyakant Lahoti, Amrita Grover, Parikshit Ahuja, Praveena Bisht, Madhur, Vindhya Mehra, Kartik Lahoti, Rahul Kaushik, Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. Modification of sanctioned layout — Promissory estoppel to allottees — Necessity of hearing municipal corporation. (Para 5 )
3. Statutory permissibility of layout modifications — Conformity with development control norms — Hierarchy of development, zonal, and layout plans. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. Validity of statutory layout modifications — Effect of inordinate delay and creation of third-party rights on writ jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — Layout modification upheld — Unsold plots directed for public amenities. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can a sanctioned layout plan be modified under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973?
Yes, modification is permitted provided the change is in accordance with the law, follows prescribed procedures, and satisfies the development control norms and conditions of the development plans, zonal plans, and town planning schemes. (Para 6 )
7. What is the legal hierarchy between development plans, zonal plans, and layout plans?
Development plans are macro-level broad objectives; zonal plans provide more detailed land-use specifics based on the development plan; and layout plans are micro-level plot-wise details subservient to both. (Para 6 )
8. How do delay and the creation of third-party rights impact the maintainability of a writ petition?
Inordinate and unexplained delay, especially when coupled with the creation of third-party rights such as the sale of plots and construction, is a significant factor that may lead the court to decline exercising its writ jurisdiction. (Para 8 )
9. Does the principle of promissory estoppel bar the modification of a layout plan?
No, if the modification is permitted by statute and conforms to development control norms. The court will not substitute its own opinion on policy if the statutory procedure is followed. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Leave granted.
2. First appellant, Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, is a statutory board established under the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Act, 1972 for the purpose of taking measures to deal with and for satisfying the need of housing accommodation in the State of Madhya Pradesh and matters connected therewith.
3. Impugned judgment dated 26th July 2017 by the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allows Writ Petition No. 7666 of 2015 preferred by the first and second respondents before us, Vijay Bodana and Ravindra Bhati, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 12th May 2008 of the Commissioner, Ujjain and the order dated 24th September 2008 of the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Ujjain (for short "T&CP") approving the change in the layout plan of Indira Nagar, Ujjain. The lease deeds executed by the appellant-board in favour of third-party purchasers were declared null and void and not to be acted upon. The land in question, it was directed, would be used as per the original layout plan.
4. The appellant-board had developed the colony 'Indira Nagar' over an area of 32 hectares in Ujjain, as per the layout plan sanctioned by the T&CP on 11th September 1981. After the colony had been in existence for about 23 years, in 2004 the appellant-board had made an application for changing the land use of 1.52 hectares earmarked for commercial shopping complex in the original layout plan to residential accommodation. However, the request for amendment was rejected by the Deputy Director, T&CP vide order dated 27.12.2004 and the appeal under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, "the Adhiniyam") before the Commissioner, Ujjain was also dismissed vide order dated 25th July 2005. On the revision petition under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, the State Government vide order dated 28th September 2006 clarified the legal position that the appellant-board had not asked for a change in land use and had asked for a modification of the layout plan approved by the T&CP which was permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. The appellant-board, it was directed, could submit the proposal for modification before the Commissioner, Ujjain for reconsideration. Thereupon, the Commissioner, Ujjain vide order 12th May 2008 had directed the Deputy Director, T&CP to re-examine the request for modification and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to this order, the Deputy Director, T&CP approved the modified layout plan vide order dated 24th September 2008.
5. The impugned judgment allows the writ petition, which was preferred by the first and second respondents after nearly seven years in 2015, inter alia holding that the Adhiniyam stands enacted with the object to prevent unplanned and haphazard development and that layout plans for residential schemes are prepared to provide for open spaces for various purposes like roads, gardens, playgrounds and facilities like schools, hospitals, community centres, shopping complex etc. Developers like the appellant-board charge extra money for plots at preferential locations adjacent to or facing public amenities such as parks, roads, water body, shopping complex, etc. The allottees accordingly pay extra/higher charges at the time of purchase with an expectation to avail and enjoy the advantages of such amenities. Therefore, the developer cannot be permitted to change the status of land to 'deceive' the allottees. Applying the principle of promissory estoppel, it has been held that the appellant-board must develop the land according to the original plan shown to the allottees at the time of purchase. Further, Ujjain Municipal Corporation was not heard and had no opportunity to represent the case as to the change in the layout plan.
6. It is an undisputed position that the State Government vide order dated 28th September 2006, while partly allowing the revision pet
