SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 58

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.
Devi Ahilya New Cloth Market Co. Ltd Thr. Managing Director Shri Hansraj Jain – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19332 of 2021, Writ Petition No. 21216 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 21400 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 21511 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 21960 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 23078 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 23082 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 23887 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 25737 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 27114 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 27878 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 28757 of 2021, WRIT PETITION No. 929 of 2022, WRIT PETITION No. 4824 of 2022
Decided on : 23-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SHRI V.K. JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS. VAISHALI JAIN, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SHRI AMAY BAJAJ, P.L./G.A. FOR STATE AND SHRI AMOL SHRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3/IMC)

Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Section 25 - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984 - Development permission - The petitioner company developed a colony for members, facing building permission revocation due to proximity to river - Permissions were initially granted but subsequently halted due to new regulations - The Court held that prior permissions remain valid under the new rules and cannot be retroactively disturbed. (Paras 5, 9, 19, 28)

(B) Environmental Law - National Green Tribunal Directions - Compliance with NGT orders regarding construction near water bodies must be respected, yet prior sanctioned plans remain enforceable. (Paras 11, 36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner company, formed by 1139 cloth traders, purchased land for colony development, receiving various permissions spanning from 1995 to 2006, later challenged by new construction regulations related to river proximity.

Findings of Court:
Acknowledged the validity of initial permissions despite subsequent regulatory changes; ordered resumption of building permissions for plots outside specified distances.

Issues: Whether new rules can retroactively affect valid permissions and the extent of NGT orders on local construction regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that existing permissions, granted under prior regulations, retain their validity under repealed rules and must not be disrupted by newer legislation.

Result: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner and respondents. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20)
3. respondents' opposition based on environmental regulations. (Para 11)
4. court's observations and interpretations of laws. (Para 21 , 24 , 28 , 31)
5. interpretation of rules and retained rights under prior permissions. (Para 22 , 23)
6. legal principles regarding development permissions. (Para 32 , 34 , 36)
7. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 38)

ORDER :

Heard finally.

2. This order shall also govern the disposal of the other connected writ petitions as a common question of law is involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P. No.19332 of 2021 are being taken into consideration.

3. This petition has been filed by Devi Ahilya New Cloth Market Company Limited, a Company registered under Section 25 of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956. The Company was registered on 28/02/1999 for the purposes of developing a colony for its shareholders and members and to sell the same to them.

4. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, the petitioner Company sought to develop a colony as New Cloth Market at village Tejpur Gadbadi, Indore comprising of Survey Nos.117, 118/2, 119, 120/2, 121/2, 124/1/2, 125/2, 127/2, 128/2, 129/2, 130, 131, 132/1 and 133, in all admeasuring 46.30 acres. This land was reserved for commercial purposes in the Master Plan.

5. The case of the petitioner is that 1139 cloth traders of Indore formed the aforesaid Company for the said purpose of developing a colony, for which, the petitioner Company also purchased the aforesaid lands through a registered sale deed dated 07/11/1990 having obtained various permissions and exemptions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and other permissions. Subsequently, the petitioner Company also applied for the development permission (Layout approval) which was firstly granted on 02/03/1995 by respondent No.2, Joint Director Town and Country Planning, which was subsequently amended/revised on 27/11/1997, 02/11/2000, 13/05/2004 and lastly on 01/02/2005 as per the prevailing of MP Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1984”) and Master Plan, 1991.

6. It is the further the case of the petitioner that after obtaining the relevant permission the petitioner applied for grant of development permission from the respondent No.3 the Indore Municipal Corporation, which was also granted on 02/01/2006 and thereafter, the Company completed the development according to the sanctioned layout plan by the Town and Country Planning Department. The permission dated 02/01/2006 issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation is also placed on record. Subsequent to that, the petitioner Company also started allotting the plots to its members/shareholders and executed registered sale deeds of almost all the plots in favour of its members and the members are now applying individually for sanction of building plans on their respective plots and huge number of members have already constructed their buildings. Subsequently, the petitioner also applied for transfer of the colony to the respondent No.3 as required by law and the colony has already been handed over to the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 15/11/2018.

7. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, after having granted several building permissions, respondent No.3 has started issuing show cause notices to some of the members on the ground that their plots are within the distance of 30 meters from the river, hence, construction be stopped by them and why the building permission granted to them be not revoked, and despite the reply being filed by the plot holders, they are not permitted to complete their construction as per the sanctioned building plan. Subsequently, on 19/06/2019 respondent No.3 Indore Mun


    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top