The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State Government has the power to release land from a development scheme, and discrimination in the treatment of similarly situated persons is impermissible.

JUDGMENT : 

This writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2000 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th May, 2006 dismissing the said writ petition.

2. The appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2000 challenging the order dated 7th April, 2000 passed by the State Government cancelling its earlier order dated 24-8-1996 whereby the land in question was exempted from Scheme Nos. 77 and 94 of Village Khajrana.

3. The case of the appellant as set up in the writ petition is that the appellant who is a Housing Co-operative Society, had purchase an area of 17.60 acres comprising of Survey Nos. 790, 791, 813, 1266, 1267, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1298, 790/1445, 790/1483, 1212/1484, and 1274/1522 of Village Khajrana, Tahsil and District Indore by registered sale-deed, after obtaining exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and 16-9-1985. Out of the aforesaid 17.60 acres of land, about 6.5 acres of land fell within the Ring Road and remaining approximately 11 acres was available for housing purposes. At the instance of the appellant, the order dated 24-8-1996 was passed exempting the land in question (excluding the area reserved for 250 wide Ring Road) on the condition that the appellant will develop the remaining are a privately in accordance with Scheme Nos. 77 and 94 and will not be entitled for any compensation for the land left for Ring Road. The order dated 24-8-1996 was stayed by the State Government by the subsequent order dated 13-9-1996 and thereafter no decision was taken on the issue, therefore, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 1217 of 1997 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10-2-1998 directing the State Government to decide the pending question within three months by giving opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 - Indore Development Authority ("IDA" for short). The State Government thereafter passed the order dated 7th April, 2000 cancelling its earlier order dated 24-8-1996 and withdrawing the exemption which was granted in respect of the land in question. The order dated 7th April, 2000 was impugned in the Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2000.

4. The respondents No. 1 and 3 had filed their reply to the writ petition taking the stand that the impugned order dated 7th April, 2000 was passed after taking opinion of the Advocate General and that section 52 of the Adhiniyam does not empower the State Government to release and land per se and in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmi chand vs. Indore Improvement Authorities dated 16-4-1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 4526 of 1978 land seized to be in the ownership of the person after the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act.

5. The respondent No. 2 had also filed reply to the. writ petition taking the stand that the final notification under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam for Scheme

7 and 894 were issued on 6-10-1978 and 10-8-1984 respectively. The petitioner had challenged the inclusion of the land in question in Scheme No. 94 in Writ Petition No. 222 of 1989 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment of the Division Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The further stand is that the land included in scheme No. 94 was duly acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and was vested free from all encumbrances in the answering respondent, therefore it could not be released.

6. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 16th May, 2006 dismissed the Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2000 filed by the appellant and affirmed the order of cancellation dated 7th April, 2000.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in proceeding on the premises that the order dated 24-8-1996 was passed without giving oppor