Back
1985 Supreme(MP) 516
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. D. MULYE, R. K. VARMA
KANTILAL - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, TOWN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, RATLAM - Respondents
M. P. 868 Of 1983
Decided On : 11/04/1985
A.K.CHITALE, C.S.Chhazed, DANGAONKAR, K.C.GANGRADE, RISARAM, S.KULSHRESTHA
Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 115 -- many houses constructed on the disputed land -- the sanctioning authority is estopped from taking back the sanction.
It is clear that when the plots in the said scheme were offered to the public on the basis of the map there was an implied promise given to the intending purchaser that the open land would be kept as an open land and, therefore, even on the principles of promissory estoppel the respondent No.1 could not lease out any portion of the open land in the manner it has been done in the present case. [Para 14
(2) Town Improvement Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 30 -- reserving open land -- purposes of -- such purposes cannot be defeated.
A nala flowing through the scheme No. 20 was in actual possession of the Municipal Corporation Ratlam. 1980 JLJ 135 (SC) relied on.
After all a residential scheme is prepared with certain object from the view point of health, sanitation, light, air and other amenities to the people of the colony and in a proper Town Development Scheme it is also necessary to provide open space of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, playgrounds, stadia, recreation grounds, schools, markets, motor vehicle stands, theatres, public urinals and latrines, patrol service station, and public purposes of all other kinds depending upon the area of the scheme. The open land has been kept with that purpose only.
Obviously this open land, therefore, could not be leased out for purpose of a Dharamshala as has been done in the present case.
In that case the Chairman, Town Improvement Trust should have given plots of land laid out in the said scheme for this purpose, but in no case the open land, which is kept reserved for the beneficial enjoyment of the residents of the colony and the plot holders, would be leased out in this manner. [Para 13
( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are residents of Ratlam and some of the holders of the plots situated in the Colony known as 'lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar' have filed this petition in their individual capacity as also on behalf of the plot holders of the said colony in a representative capacity under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to quash part 2 of the Resolution dated 18-4-1983 (Annexure-M) passed by respondent No. 1 and that the lease granted on 1-7-1983 by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the said Resolution be quashed being void and thus the Res. No. 1 be directed not to act upon it, in the matter of M. P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition, which are no longer in dispute, may be stated, in brief, thus: the plot holders of Shastri Nagar Colony, Ratlam have an Association named 'nagar Vikas Samiti, Shastri Nagar, Ratlam' of which the plot holders and the residents in the said colony are its members. Res. No. 1 under the M. P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 prepared a Housing accommodation scheme known as Scheme No. 20 which was duly sanctioned by the State Government for the town of Ratlam. The lay out plan of the said scheme No. 20 is Annexure-A. In pursuance of this scheme the Res. No. 1 started granting lease for the open plots of land in the said scheme for the purpose of construction of houses, in the year 1968, at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq. ft. Accordingly the petitioners were also granted lease patta in respect of the plots purchased by them, each measuring 30 ft. X 50 ft. as mentioned in para 5 of the petition. A copy of the lease deed has been filed as Annexure-B along with an extract of the map Annexure-C in which also the open land has been shown. Thus, all the open plots in scheme No. 20 have been given on lease by Res. No. 1 and houses have been constructed on most of them, after obtaining the permission from respondent No. 2, the Municipal Corporation, Ratlam to whom they have been paying property taxes and other taxes.
( 3 ) IN the said scheme, as per the map Annexure-A, open land measuring 56,539 sq. ft. has been set a part as an open land as per Annexure-R1 filed by respondent No. 1. The petitioners have got their plots in front of the said open land.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners this open land has been set apart for a garden for the residents in the said locality as provided in S. 30 of the M. P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 and consequently this land having been reserved for the purpose of garden only, it has to be kept as an open land for ever. That the Nagar Vikas Samiti, Shastri Nagar, Ratlam by their letter dt. 16-3-1982 Annexure-D sought permission from respondent No. 1 to install a statue of late Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri in the said open land enclosing therewith the map Annexure-E showing where the statue was to be installed. Respondent No. 1 by their reply dt. 30-4-1982 Annexure-F informed the Samiti that the respondent No. 1 has transferred the entire scheme No. 20, Shastri Nagar to Respondent No. 2 in accordance with the Town Improvement Trust Act and by a subsequent letter dt. 21-5-1983 Annexure-G, the respondent No. 1 sanctioned permission for the installation of the statue of Shastriji in the said open place as requested by them. Thus, in short, according to the petitioners the entire scheme No. 20, after it was sanctioned by the State Government, was transferred to Respondent No. 2 in which it vested and thereafter the respondent No. 1 had no authority or jurisdiction to upset the scheme in any way.
( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioners has been that in July, 1983 they learnt that the respondent No. 1 was selling the open land reserved for garden in the said scheme to respondent No. 3. They, therefore, applied for a certified copy of the resolution, if any, passed by respondent No. 1 in this connection, but surprisingly a copy of the entire resolution No. 152 dt. 18-4-1983 was not s
