High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. MULYE, R. K. VARMA
SADHANA AGRAWAL - Appellant
Versus
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 83 Of 1985
Decided On : 05/01/1985
(2) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (MP)-Ss 38, 39 and 49-Indore Development Authority-is a statutory body-must act reasonably and not arbitrarily-Constitution of India-Art. 226.
The Indore Development Authority is an instrumentality of the State Government which is constituted, established and incorporated under the Adhiniyam of 1973 for town and country development. It has power of acquisition, development and sale or lease of land for the purpose of town expansion as has been provided 'under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. The Indore Development Authority has power to prepare development scheme and to acquire and develop areas for commercial and industrial purposes as also to undertake such building or construction work as may be necessary to provide housing, shopping, commercial and other facilities. [Para 43
The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by the Government would equally apply where such Authority dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise and it cannot act arbitrarily and its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance, [Para 42
The Indore Development Authority obviously acts in the statutory background and exercises powers in determination of the costs of the flats. There is, however, no concluded contract between the Indore Development Authority and the prospective hire purchaser including the petitioners. The dealings of the Indore Development Authority including fixation of cost from time to time have been in the precontractual stage. As such an arbitrary fixation of costs would be amenable to interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 46
It is apparent that the Indore Development Authority in the instant case has been dealing with the petitioners and others in an arbitrary and dictatorial manner and the escalation of cost at different stages amounting to more than 100% has not been explained to any degree of satisfaction either to the petitioners or other purchasers or even in Court before us. The allottees for whom the Indore Development Authority constructs are the real and ultimate owners of the property and as such the Indore Development Authority necessarily is held responsible for any act or omission on its part which adversely affects the interests of the prospective purchaser allottees. It is reasonable to expect a fair degree of information by the Indore Development Authority sufficient to satisfy the allottees about the reason and the extent of escalation of residential flats or else it would give rise to a reasonable suspicion of inefficiency, arbitrariness and corruption creeping into the escalation of costs. [Para 50
(3) Evidence Act, 1872-S. 115-estoppel-promissory estoppel-scope of-Constitution of India-Art. 72.
(4) Constitution of India-Art. 12-'other authority'-corporation-is bound by rule of promissory estoppel.
The principle of promissory estoppel would certainly estop the Authority from backing out of its obligation arising from a solemn promise made by it to the respondent. The respondent acting upon the solemn promise made by the appellant incurred huge expenditure and if the appellant is held to its promise, the respondent would be put in a very disadvantageous position and therefore also the principle of promissory estoppel can be invoked in this Case Law discussed. [Para 42
(5) Constitution of India-Art. 226-petitioners-when cannot he directed to approach civil Court.
The Indore Development Authority insisted that the petitioners are liable to be directed to go to Civil Court and file Civil suit against it.
Held: If the hundreds of purchasers allottees aggrieved by the arbitrary dealings and highhandedness of a public authority were to be driven to file suits, the object of having a responsible public authority like the Indore Development Authority for orderly development of the township would be frustrated and would result in widespread discontent and chaos with the growth of development activities in the town. [Para 51
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner who have made a grievance against the arbitrary dealings of the Indore Development Authority vis a vis the petitioners and others who are the prospective purchasers of flat in Navlakha Complex constructed by the Indore Development Authority in its Scheme No. 31.
( 2 ) THE petitioners have stated in the opening paragraph of their petition that they have filed this petition not only in their personal capacity as aggrieved parties but also in the capacity of representatives of over 100 other persons aggrieved by the very same conduct/decision/orders of Indore Development Authority, who attended and participated in meetings of such persons as per list Appendix 'a' appended to the petition and have desired to file and support the petition and also in the capacity of responsible citizens agitating against wrongs by a public body and authority, in the public interest. The petitioners have prayed that this petition be treated as a public interest petition for protection of interests of the public and of a large class of persons, besides being a personal petition. The petitioners aver that they have the constitutional right to ensure, that the State and other public authorities function in accordance with law and do not transgress the constitutional provisions and functions within the sphere and in the manner determined by law. ( 3 ) BEFORE coming to the contentions raised by the petitioners it would be proper to set out the statutory background of the Indore Development Authority and the relevant facts of this case.
( 4 ) THE Indore Development Authority (Respondent No. 1) has been constituted under the provisions of M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam") the objects of the Adhiniyam are stated as under :-"an Act to make provision for planning and development and use of land, to make better provision for the preparation of development plans and zoning plans with a view to ensuring town planning scheme are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective, to constitute Town and Country planning Authority for proper implementation of town and country development plan, to provide for the development and administration of special areas through special Area Development authority, to make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land required for the purpose of development plans and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. "x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
( 5 ) THE establishment and incorporation of Town and Country Development Authority and the nature of town development schemes with which such authority is concerned are provided under Ss. 38, 39 and 49 of the Adhiniyam and it would be pertinent to reproduce these provisions at the outside as under:-"38. Establishment of Town and Country Development Authority - (1) The State Government may, by notification, establish a Town and Country Development Authority by such name and for such area as may be specified in the notification. (2) The duty of implementing the proposal in the development plan, preparing one or more town development schemes and acquisition and development of land for the purpose of expansion or improvement of the area specified in the notification under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the provision of this Act vest in the Town and Country Development Authority established for the said area. 39. Incorporation of Town and Country Development Authority -every Town and Country development Authority shall be a body corporate by the name specified in the notification under section 38, and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both moveable and immovable and subject to the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder, to transfer any property held by it, to contract and to do all other things necessary for the purposes of this Act and
REFERRED TO : P.N. Verma v. Union of India
Mangatram v. Delhi Development Authority
Bansal Exports P. Ltd. v. Union of India
Kulchhindar Singh v. Hardayal Singh Brar
Divisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd.
Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.