Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 453
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
K.K. Trivedi, J.
Geeta Sharma and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 4193-2009 and 4353-2011
Decided On : 07-04-2015
For the Petitioner: R.N. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Arpan J. Pawar andH.K. Upadhyay, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondents: Vaibhav Tiwari, Learned Panel Lawyer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondent JDA to comply with the terms of the agreement and settle the land in favor of the petitioner, as well as the applicability of equitable principles and legal precedents in determining the rights of the parties.
Headnote:
arbitrary and malafide action - Property Rights - Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - [Act Section List] - The court discussed the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and its application in the matter of conferral of rights over the plot in dispute. The court highlighted the agreement between the parties, the conditions of the agreement, and the obligations of the parties. The court also referred to various legal principles established in previous cases and their applicability to the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the alleged arbitrary and malafide action of the respondents in conferral of property rights over a plot. The petitioner was a member of a Cooperative Housing Society and claimed that a plot was allotted to her by the society. The land was acquired by the respondent-State for a housing scheme, and disputes arose regarding the allotment and possession of the plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought and directed the respondent JDA to settle the land in favor of the petitioner or her legal representatives within a specified period, on payment of development charges as prescribed in the resolution dated 08.05.2006.
Issues: The issues involved were whether the claims raised in the writ petition were covered by previous court decisions, and whether the respondent JDA was bound by the agreement till its cancellation and whether the petitioner was entitled to claim settlement of the plot in her favor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent JDA was required to comply with the terms of the agreement and settle the land in favor of the petitioner. The court also emphasized the equitable principles governing contractual matters and the applicability of legal principles established in previous cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent JDA was directed to implement its resolution dated 08.05.2006 and settle the land in favor of the petitioner or her legal representatives within a period of two months from the date of the judgment, on payment of development charges as prescribed in the said resolution.
K.K. Trivedi, J.
1. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar, the relief claimed are identical, both the writ petitions are heard together. However, the facts are taken from W.P. No. 4193/2009.
2. The original petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the alleged arbitrary and malafide action of the respondents in the matter of conferral of the rights over the plot in dispute said to be allotted to the petitioner by respondent No. 3, in terms of the agreement between the respondents No. 2 and 3 and has also called in question the actions of the respondents in demanding the price of the said plot at the prevalent rate. It is contended that in fact the original petitioner was member of the respondent No. 3, a Cooperative Housing Society and by virtue of that membership, a plot was allotted to the petitioner. The land obtained by the respondent No. 3 was in fact acquired by the respondent-State for the purposes of making it available to the respondent No. 2, Jabalpur Development Authority (herein after referred to as 'JDA') for the purposes of implementing its scheme, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'Act'). However, the agreement in between the respondents No. 2 and 3 was executed on 7th December, 1983 to the effect that on development of the land by the Society, certain plots would be made available to the Society for the purposes of allotment of the same to the members. Pursuance to the said agreement, the allotment was made by the Society during the subsistence of the agreement, which was ultimately revoked by the JDA on 21.10.1993 alleging that the term of development within the period of two years from the date of agreement was not fulfilled by the Society and the possession of the land was demanded. However, there were certain more disputes between the members of the Society and Society itself. There were differences between the Society and JDA, which resulted in filing of litigation before this Court in which the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. The Division Bench of this Court had passed certain orders in the said cases. Pursuance to the said order, actions were taken by the respondents and to settle the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, demand was made for payment of the development cost at particular rate fixed, which the petitioner though was not liable to pay, agreed to pay. Despite this, the land was not settled in favour of the petitioner and now by the impugned demand, development charge is being claimed at exorbitant rate, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed seeking protection of property rights of the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition :
"7.1. To hold that the action of the respondent no.2 is not calling the petitioner and other promoter members of the respondent no.3 society who have deposited the then value of the plot allotted to them and allotment deeds were executed in their favour in the year 1990, is illegal and to quash the notices issued to respondent no.5 to 7 and others.
7.2. To direct the respondent no.2 to call the promoter members of the respondent no.3 society including the petitioner and execute lease deed/title deed in their favour on the price prevalent in the respective year of taking membership, by depositing minimum required amount against the respective plots, as desired by this Hon'ble Court deciding W.P. No. 868/1994.
7.3. To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
7.4. That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to be hold that the order/resolution of the respondent board order no.2178 dated 15.06.2012 annexure P-37 is bad in law and further be pleased to quash the same in the interest of justice."
3. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on various grounds. The responde
