The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the land is not acquired for the designated purpose, the designation shall lapse, and the landowner cannot be deprived of the use of the land for an indefinite period.

S.C. SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner before this Court, a Society registered under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 registered in the name and style of 'Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation' has filed this present writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

"That in view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, the petitioner pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to either acquire the said land by paying proper compensation prescribed under the prevailing laws or to delete the designated land use under the Master Plan and permit the petitioner to use of the said land for the purposes as claimed by the petitioner. This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with costs and any other relief which may be deemed just and expedient be also granted".

Further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of land admeasuring 29.778 Hectare situated at Village Jakhya, Tehsil Sanwer and District Indore including land bearing Survey No. 81/1, 98, 99, 100 and 181 admeasuring 5.347 hectares.

2. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 - State, in exercise of the powers conferred under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 has issued a Master Plan known as Indore Development Plan 2021 and as per the Indore Development Plan 2021, popularly known as Master Plan, the land use in respect of the land in question is prescribed as "Mandi". The grievance of the petitioner is that he cannot establish a Mandi, being a Society registered under the provisions of the Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam that too being Charitable in nature and, therefore, the land belonging to the petitioner - Society is going waste. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Society has drawn attention of this Court towards section 34 and section 35 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government has to decide the petitioner's notice (Annexure P/4) dt. 4-10-2013 on merits either by acquiring the land of the petitioner or by changing the land use. It has also been stated that by some mechanical order dt. 16-1-2014 the notice has been turned down by the respondents.

3. A detailed reply has been filed by the State Government and the stand of the State Government is that the area in question, keeping in view the Master Plan 2021 is ear-marked for Public-Semi Public Purposes and Mandi. It has also been stated that as the land has been notified for the purpose of establishing a Mandi, it can be used only for the purpose of establishing a Mandi and nothing else. The respondents have also stated that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the notice enclosed along with the Writ Petition cannot be said to be an application under section 23A(b) of the Act. The respondents have also enclosed extract of the Master Plan.

4. A reply has been filed by the respondent No. 6 also and the stand taken by the respondent No. 6 is of technical nature opposing the Writ Petition on the ground of maintainability. It has been stated that no resolution has been passed by the Society for prosecuting the matter and, therefore, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.

6. In the present case, the admitted facts establish that as per the Master Plan notified by the respondents, the land use of the land in question owned by the petitioner, is Mandi. It is again an admitted fact that the petitioner Society cannot establish a Mandi. It is only the respondent No. 5 and 6 who can establish a Mandi. A categoric query was raised to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and 6 whether they intent to establish any Mandi or not. It has been stated in the open Court by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 th