Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
S.C. SHARMA, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Pradeep Hinduja - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6308 of 2017
Decided On : 17-12-2018
The Court held that the Indore Development Plan, 2021 published in terms of Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 overrides the Madhya Praesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012 published under the same Act of 1973.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that the permissions granted for the construction of high-rise buildings in Indore, Bhopal, Gwalior, and Jabalpur were in violation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012, particularly with respect to the density of persons who can be accommodated in a specific area.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Indore Development Plan, 2021, which was published in accordance with Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, superseded the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012. The Court held that the Development Plan provided for zoning and incentivized development and had overriding effect on the Bhumi Vikas Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the Indore Development Plan, 2021 overrides the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012? 2. Whether the permissions granted for the construction of high-rise buildings in Indore, Bhopal, Gwalior, and Jabalpur were in violation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Indore Development Plan, 2021, which was published in accordance with Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, superseded the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012. The Court held that the Development Plan provided for zoning and incentivized development and had overriding effect on the Bhumi Vikas Rules.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the PIL, holding that the petitioner had not been able to make out a case and that the permissions granted for the construction of high-rise buildings were in accordance with the statutory provisions.
ORDER :
S.C. Sharma, J.
1. I.A. Nos.390/2018, 407/2018, 4586/2018, 4499/2018, 4809/2018, 5635/2018, 5636/2018, 4570/2018, 4587/2018, 5654/2018, 5658/2018, 5653/2018, 5657/2018, 5659/2018, 5409/2018, 5458/2018 & 5457/2018 are taken up.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid, I.As stand disposed of.
The petitioner before this Court, who is a resident of Indore, has filed this present petition as a Public Interest Litigation and it has been stated that he is self-employed individual with Public Spirated Orientation. It has been stated by the petitioner that by way of the present writ petition, he is seeking direction to the respondents to ensure that development of major cities of Madhya Pradesh is carried out in consonance with the statutory provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 r/w Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) Quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure-P/11).
(ii) The respondents be directed to restart the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Nivesh Adhiniyam, 173 in pursuance of the letter dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure-P/7) and letter dated 13.01.2017 (Annexure-P/8).
(iii) The development/building permissions granted for the construction of high rise buildings which are not in accordance with the Rule 60 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012, be quashed.
(iv) The respondents be directed to reconsider all the development/building permissions granted for the construction of high rise building in view of the provisions regarding residential density.
(v) The respondents be directed to comply with all norms and provisions of Master Plans and the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vkas Rules, 1984/2012 as already admitted by them in the reply filed on 03.01.2014 (Annexure-P/2).
(vi) Any other which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be granted to the petitioner.
(vii) Costs of this petition be awarded.
(vii) The order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 being illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rules 60 of M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984/2012 be quashed.
2. The petitioner has further stated that various development permissions for construction of High Rise buildings were granted without following the norms regarding gross residential density, as contained under Rule 60 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 and as the same was disastrous to the available infrastructure and civil amenities available in the cities, he was compelled to file a writ petition in respect of High Rise buildings constructed in Indore, Bhopal, Gwalior and Jabalpur and the same was registered as W.P. No.8257/2010. The writ petition was preferred before the Principle Seat of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
3. The petitioner has further stated that the reply was filed by the respondent in the aforesaid writ petition and the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.02.2015 in the earlier round of litigation, has directed the respondents therein to consider and redress the objection and grievance of the petitioner in light of the relevant legal provisions governing the development permission at the time when such permissions were granted. The respondents were also directed to pass an order after granting opportunity of hearing to all concern.
4. The petitioner has also stated that he has appeared before the competent authority, and finally, an order was passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development on 05.09.2017. The Principal Secretary has rejected the representation/objection by passing a detailed order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal Secretary also.
5. Various grounds have been raised by the petitioner and it has been contended that the non-compliance of Rule 60 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984/2012 in respect of gross residential density and non compliance of the provisions of the Master Plans by the respondents consti
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
