The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession of land under the Land Acquisition Act must be actual and physical, and not merely symbolic, for denotification under section 48. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the requirement for a statutory Zoning Plan to be in force for construction permissions under section 30 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

Even though in this writ petition challenge is made to four orders namely : Annexures P/3, P/4, P/5 and P/14, but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that challenge to order-dated 13-2-1996 - Annexure P/4, in the matter of release of land under the Urban Land Ceiling Act; and, the order-dated 3-8-1998 - Annexure P/14, passed in the revision are not pressed and they are being withdrawn.

That being so, in this petition for the present, challenge is only made to order-dated 29-12-1995 - Annexure P/3, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby land measuring 1.22 Acres situated in Survey No. 1519/2 is released from acquisition in accordance to the provisions of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and challenge is also made to an order-dated 17-7-1996 - Annexure P/5, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby sanction for construction of a commercial complex has been granted under section 30 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are that petitioner claims to be a resident of Bhopal and engaged in the business of establishing Hotels and managing them. It is stated that respondent No. 2 - the Director of Town and Country Planning, formulated a Zoning Plan for Bhopal, which was known as M. P. Nagar, Zone II, and the petitioner on the basis of the said plan purchased a plot bearing No. 256, which was allotted to him by the Bhopal Development Authority. He is said to have constructed a Hotel on the plot which is known as 'Hotel Ganpati'. It is said that this Hotel is constructed in Plot No. 256 and is in front of the main road. The petitioner is said to have purchased the plot and constructed the hotel on being satisfied with regard to necessary approach road and other infrastructural facilities being available. It is further stated that a Notification was issued on 7-1-1960 by the State Government -Annexure P/1 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of acquiring certain land for development of Bhopal. Even though various lands are notified for acquisition in the Notification, for the purpose of the present petition, the land bearing Survey No. 1519/1 area 34.72 acres and land bearing Survey No. 1519/2 area 8.50 acres, are only relevant. The said land belongs to respondent Nos. 5 to 11. The land was acquired and vide Annexure P/2, on 31-8-1967, possession of the land with regard to both these survey numbers, total area 43.22 acres, was taken over by the Government through the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhopal and it was transferred to the Bhopal Improvement Trust. However, while taking over possession of this land as per this possession certificate - Annexure P/2, certain area was left out, which is indicated in the certificate as a petrol pump, a store, cattle shed, residential building. This area i.e. 1.22 acres, is situated in Survey No. 1519/2. The dispute and controversy in this writ petition is with regard to this area measuring 1.22 acres, of which possession is not shown to be taken vide Annexure P/2. Be that as it may, after the possession and acquisition proceedings were held, it is said that exercising the powers available under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, an order was passed by the State Government vide Annexure P/3, on 29-12-1994, whereby this land measuring 1.22 acres and consisting of a petrol pump situated in 0.2 acres; two sheds situated in 0.05 acres; a residential house situated in 0.06 acres; and, open land measuring 1.09 acres was denotified and released from acquisition. It was held that possession of this area has not been taken over and, therefore, the denotification was issued and there is withdrawal from acquisition of this area and one of the conditions imposed for denotification was that certain area, which is required for construction of a 62' wide road, shall not be released. It is stated that the respondents 5 to 11 have agreed for this.

3. After re