Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
DIPAK MISRA, A. K. SRIVASTAVA
MOTIRAM MARIDHYANI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
L. P. A. 186 Of 2000
Decided On : 03/17/2003
The Court held that the State Government had the power to constitute a committee to investigate the allotment of land by the JDA, and that the committee's report was admissible in evidence even though the allottees were not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court also held that the JDA did not abdicate its power to the committee, and that the show-cause notices issued to the allottees were not a mere formality. The Court further held that the allottees were not prejudiced by the non-supply of the committee's report, and that the JDA had acted in accordance with the law in fixing the premium and rent for the land. The Court also held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case, and that the delay in initiating the cancellation proceedings was not unreasonable. Finally, the Court held that the learned single Judge had not erred in directing the JDA to re-advertise for applications for the land.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were allotted land by the JDA for the purpose of constructing educational institutions. The allotments were made on concessional terms, and the appellants were required to pay a premium of Rs. 10 per square foot for 40% of the land. The appellants paid the premium and took possession of the land, but they did not construct any buildings on the land. The State Government constituted a committee to investigate the allotment of land by the JDA. The committee found that the JDA had violated the rules in making the allotments, and it recommended that the allotments be cancelled. The JDA issued show-cause notices to the appellants, and after considering their replies, it cancelled the allotments. The appellants filed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of their allotments. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, and the appellants appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government had the power to constitute a committee to investigate the allotment of land by the JDA, and that the committee's report was admissible in evidence even though the allottees were not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court also held that the JDA did not abdicate its power to the committee, and that the show-cause notices issued to the allottees were not a mere formality. The Court further held that the allottees were not prejudiced by the non-supply of the committee's report, and that the JDA had acted in accordance with the law in fixing the premium and rent for the land. The Court also held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case, and that the delay in initiating the cancellation proceedings was not unreasonable. Finally, the Court held that the learned single Judge had not erred in directing the JDA to re-advertise for applications for the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the power to constitute a committee to investigate the allotment of land by the JDA? 2. Whether the committee's report was admissible in evidence even though the allottees were not given an opportunity to be heard? 3. Whether the JDA abdicated its power to the committee? 4. Whether the show-cause notices issued to the allottees were a mere formality? 5. Whether the allottees were prejudiced by the non-supply of the committee's report? 6. Whether the JDA had acted in accordance with the law in fixing the premium and rent for the land? 7. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied in this case? 8. Whether the delay in initiating the cancellation proceedings was unreasonable? 9. Whether the learned single Judge had erred in directing the JDA to re-advertise for applications for the land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government has the power to constitute a committee to investigate the allotment of land by the JDA. 2. The committee's report is admissible in evidence even though the allottees were not given an opportunity to be heard. 3. The JDA did not abdicate its power to the committee. 4. The show-cause notices issued to the allottees were not a mere formality. 5. The allottees were not prejudiced by the non-supply of the committee's report. 6. The JDA had acted in accordance with the law in fixing the premium and rent for the land. 7. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply in this case. 8. The delay in initiating the cancellation proceedings was not unreasonable. 9. The learned single Judge had not erred in directing the JDA to re-advertise for applications for the land.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed.
( 1 ) IN this batch of appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the letters Patent, the appellants have called in question the defensibility and the legal propriety of the composite order passed by the learned single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions as well as the sustainability of a singular order passed separately. It is apropos to state here the learned single Judge disposed of eight writ petitions by a common order on the base that common questions of law with slight variation of facts arose for determination and hence, they deserved to be dealt with by a common order. As in another writ petition, the factual matrix was-depicted in a different manner he passed a separate order. We may state at the outset that all the writ petitioners have not preferred appeals but only present appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court taking recourse to intra-Court appeal.
( 2 ) IN different appeals facts have been adumbrated in different manners but essentially the facts which have been depicted in the impugned order, barring the separate order, there is no noticeable variance in their basic features and, therefore, we shall state the facts as have been exposited in the orders.
( 3 ) JABALPUR Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the JDA') got an advertisement published in various newspapers on 19-3-1991 inviting applications from educational institutions for allotment of the land in its various schemes. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellants submitted their applications. The appellant, namely, guru Gobind Singh Educational Society was allotted 1,24,630 sq. ft. bf land for Construction of high school. Appellant-Motiram madhiyani, -President, Sindhu Samaj (in LPA no. 186/2000) was allotted 1,24,750 sq. ft. for construction of high school arid a college. Shanti Nagar Bal Vikas Shiksha Samiti was allotted 45,600 sq. ft. for the purpose of constructing a middle school. Apart from the aforesaid allotment, Shri Ram Mandir shiksha Samiti was allotted 60,000 sq. ft. initially which was later on enhanced to 1,55,000 sq. ft, Ranjhi Vivekanand Shiksha vikas Samiti was allotted 13,993 sq. ft. and jabalpur Thoak Vastra Vikreta was allotted 93. 670 sq. ft. and Maharashtra Samaj was allotted 11,700 sq. ft. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the terms of allotment, the allottees were allowed to make construction over 40% of the area allotted in their favour and they were required to pay a premium of 10 rupees per sq. ft. limited to the area over which they had been allowed to make constructions. The further obligation the allottees were required to fulfil was to make payment of 50% of the premium amount within a fortnight from the date of allotment i. e. 31-7-1991 except in the case of Sindhu Samaj which was given time till 15-9-1991. The balance amount pertaining to premium was to be deposited in six months instalments. Sindhu Samaj and Shanti Nagar bal Vikas Shiksha Samiti had cleared the full premium that was to be paid by them. Certain allottees had not paid premium within the time stipulated but paid later on. Some allottees paid a partial sum towards the premium but did not make the full payment. It is relevant to state here Guru Gobind Singh educational Society had made the payment of premium amount of Rs. 2,49,260/- on 13-8-1991 and had not made any payment thereafter.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioners, the state Government by its order dated 27-9-1994 constituted a one man committee headed by Mr. G. Jagathapathi the former chief Secretary of the State of Madhya pradesh for probing into the matter relating to question of allotment of land made by the municipal Corporations/municipality/special area Development Authority, Town development Authority, Town Improvement trust and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. In view of the decision of the State government, the Committee dwelled upon, the issue relating to allotments made in favour of the writ petitioners. The Committee found that the JDA instead of considerin
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
