Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Indore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6378 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.8971 of 2022)
Decided On : 06-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR, Mr. Ambar Pare, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, AOR, Mr. Sajal Singhai, Adv., Ms. Yashika Gupta, Adv., Mr. Nitish Kant Sharma, Adv., Ms. Christi Jain, AOR, Mr. Manoj Munshi, Adv., Mr. Mann Arora, Adv., Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv., Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv., Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv.
Claims for compensation for land utilized as a public amenity are invalid if the land serves a community purpose and the claimants had agreed to its designation.
Headnote:(A) Urban Development Laws - Green Belt Development - The respondent-Society owned 2,405 sq. mtrs of land utilized by the appellant-Authority for a green belt. The High Court granted compensation for the land used, which was in violation of the Society's agreement to the Layout Plan. (Paras 5, 10, 12)
(B) Public Amenities - The land developed as a green belt serves as a public amenity benefiting the respondents, negating its claim for compensation for private benefit. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The respondent-Society sought compensation for land earmarked for a green belt under town development schemes while continuing to benefit from its use.
Findings of Court:
The green belt development conforms with the layout plan; hence, the claim for compensation is unjustified.
Issues: Whether the Society could claim compensation for land used for a green belt that benefits its members.
Ratio Decidendi: Claims for compensation are invalid when the land is developed as a public amenity benefiting the claimants as per accepted legal terms.
Result: Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and usage of land for development. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. green belt as a public amenity. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. dual benefits from public amenities are prohibited. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The controversy revolves around a strip of land measuring 2,405 sq. mtrs. This land, owned by the respondent-Society, has been utilized by the appellant-Authority to develop a green belt abutting the MR-11 Road in Indore.
3. The respondent-Society owned a large parcel of land measuring 19.90 acres in village Niranjanpur, Indore, including the strip of land measuring 2,405 sq. mtrs. The said land fell under the Town Development Scheme, notified by the appellant-Authority on 03.04.1987. The respondent-Society sought the release of its land, on the premise that it would utilize that land for the residential purpose of its members in conformity with the Town Development Plan. The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore, consequently agreed to release the land of the respondent-Society. Shortly thereafter, the Joint Director approved the residential layout of land vide Memo dated 26.05.1998, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid Memo read as follows:
“1. Before carry out development work on the site, the Society shall have to receive possession of land in question again from the M.P. Slum Development Board again.
2. Before construction of Group Housing building, after getting approved it’s Building Layout from the Municipal Corporation, it’s one copy shall have to be produced in this Office.
3. The area of each house to be constructed Group Housing Building, shall not be more than 40 Sq. Mtrs.
4. The allotment of Group Housing Building shall be done as per the instructions issued vide Order No. 1087/32/98, Bhopal dated 13th February, 198 of the Government of M.P., Housing & Environment Department.
5. First of all, the Society shall have to register the sale deeds of the buildings of the Informal Sector, thereafter, the members will be entitled to sell out the plots.
6. In case of dispute related to land, this permission shall stand revoked.
7. Rest of conditions shall remain as it is according to the layout sanctioned vide Letter No. 2357 dated 20.05.1992.”
4. It is evident from the above extract that the respondent- Society was bound by the specific condition that, in addition to what was expressly mentioned from Sr. Nos. 1 to 6, the rest of the conditions would apply in accordance with the “layout plan” sanctioned on 20.05.1992.
5. In the said layout plan, the subject land was admittedly earmarked for the development of a green belt abutting the MR-11 Road. It is pertinent to mention that the land where the MR-11 Road has been constructed also belonged to the respondent-Society for which compensation, in accordance with law, has been paid. Soon after, the respondent-Society claimed compensation for the land which was utilized to develop the green belt abutting the MR-11 Road. The Society eventually approached the High Court for grant of compensation. Its claim was accepted vide the Impugned Judgment.
6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the Layout Plan of the respondent-Society.
7. We find that the members of the respondent-Society, to whom residential plots have been allotted, are the direct beneficiaries of the green belt proposed to be developed by the appellate-Authority. The importance of a green belt, to serve as the lungs for the residents of nearby localities, hardly needs emphasis.
8. Through multiple proceedings before the High Court, the respondent-Society, it appears, sought to derive ‘dual benefit’ from the green belt. At the first instance, the respondent-Society sought financial compensation for the utilization of its land for the purpose of a green belt; alongside this, the Society continues to derive direct and indirect bene
