Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Ramlal (Dead) thorough LRs. Maheshwari Yadav and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petitioner No. 4444 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 25.6.2018.
V.K. Jain with Vaibhav Jain for petitioner; Amit Singh Sisodia, Government Advocate for respondents/State; Sunil Jain with Anand Soni for respondents No. 3 and 4.
Headnote: ¼1½ uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 30] 31] 32] 33] 50] 51 RkFkk 53 & e-iz- Hkwfe fodkl fu;e] 2012 & fu- 23 & vukifÙk izek.ki= iznku fd;k x;k] Hkwfe O;iofrZr dh xbZ rFkk fodkl vuqKk iznku dh xbZ & fodkl 'kqDy fuf{kIr ,oa djkj fu"ikfnr & ,slh Hkwfe uxj fodkl ;kstuk esa lfEefyr & bl fo"k; esa ;kph dh vkifÙk [kkfjt & bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds ,sls vkns'k ds fo#) ;kph }kjk iqujh{k.k izLrqr & eatwj rFkk bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks izfrizsf"kr & bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k viuk ladYi bl vk/kkj ij okil ugha ys ldrk fd vuqKk O;ixr gks xbZ gS & vU;Fkk Hkh] vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ,slk vkns'k okil ysus ;k iqufoZyksdu djus dk dksbZ mica/k ugha gSA ¼2012½7 ,l lh lh 200] 2010¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 659] , vkb vkj 2010 ,l lh 3745] , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 1782] , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 2186] , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 1273] 2013¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 390 rFkk ¼2010½10 ,l lh lh 388 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 10 ls 13
¼2½ iqufoZyksdu & e-iz- uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vf/kfu;e] 1973 & /kkjk 30 & iqufoZyksdu 'kfä dh O;kfIr & bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk fodkl vuqKk iznku dh xbZ & okil vFkok iqufoZyksfdr ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu iqufoZyksdu dk mica/k ugha gSA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 13
(1) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.) -- Ss. 30, 31, 32, 33, 50, 51 and 53 -- M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012 -- R. 23 -- NOC granted, land diverted and permission of development granted -- development charges deposited and agreement executed -- such land included in Town Development Scheme -- objection of petitioner in this regard rejected -- against such order of IDA -- revision filed by petitioner -- allowed and matter remanded to IDA -- IDA cannot recall its on resolution on ground that permission has lapsed -- even otherwise, no provision under Adhiniyam to recall or review such order. (2012)7 SCC 200, 2010(1) MPLJ 659, AIR 2010 SC 3745, AIR 2005 SC 1782, AIR 1987 SC 2186, AIR 1970 SC 1273, 2013(4) MPLJ 390 and (2010)10 SCC 388 referred to. [Paras 2 & 10 to 13
(2) Review -- M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 -- S. 30 -- scope of powers of review -- development permission granted by IDA -- cannot be recalled or reviewed because there is no provision of review under Adhiniyam. [Paras 2 & 13
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 22.8.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 4 whereby NOC issued vide letter No. 3114-Bhu-Arjan/2012 dated 24.5.2012 in respect of land bearing Survey Nos. 282 area 0.125 Hect., 328/1 area 0.520 Hect., 328/2 area 1.130 Hect., 328/3 area 2.242 Hect. and 329/1 area 1.586 Hect., total area 5.603 Hect. of Village Palakhedi (hereinafter, for short, “the land in question”) has been cancelled.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioners are the owners and possession of the land 327/1, 328/1, 328/2, 328/3, 329/1 and 282 total area 12.506 Hect. Petitioners also got diverted the said land for residential purpose from the agricultural. They applied for development permission and in exercise of powers conferred under section 30 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, “the Adhiniyam”), the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore had granted the permission vide order dated 15.5.2009 which was further renewed vide order dated 17.2.2010. Likewise, petitioner No. 5 was also granted development permission vide order dated 4.8.2006 and renewed vide order dated 17.2.2010.
3. In order to introduce new “Super Corridor”, the DA sought approval from the State Government to declare the scheme under section 50 of the Adhiniyam. The State Government did not pass any order, therefore, by virtue of section 50 of the Adhiniyam, the permission was deemed to have been granted. Thereafter, the IDA passed Resolution No. 198 dated 11.7.2008 proposing Town Development Scheme called “Scheme No. 169-B” as a supplement to Scheme No. 139 and 151. The declaration was published on 23.7.2008 as contemplated under section 50(2) of the Adhiniyam. In the aforesaid declaration, the land in question belonging to the petitioners was also included in the draft scheme and the objections were invited. The petitioner submitted the objections which were dismissed by the IDA vide order dated 16.8.2010. Thereafter, final scheme was published under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam by way of Gazette Notification dated 15.10.2010.
4. The petitioners assailed the final scheme by filing revision before the Director, Town and Country Planning. The IDA filed the reply refuting the stand taken by the petitioners. Vide order dated 26.4.2011, the respondent No. 2 allowed the revision on the ground that the petitioners had already obtained the development permission on 4.8.2006 i.e. prior to the declaration of Notification of formulation of Scheme No. 169B on 23.7.2008. Respondent No. 2. Remanded the matter back to the IDA to decide the petitioners' grievance afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed detailed representation on 3.5.2011 and in compliance of the order of respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 passed the order in their favour by issuing the notice dated 21.12.2011 directing them to deposit the development charges @ Rs. 7,43,700/- per Acre to the tune of Rs. 1,02,96,550/-. The petitioners were further directed to execute the agreement that they shall raise the construction on the land in question in conformity with Scheme No. 169-B. In pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners had deposited the aforesaid amount with the IDA and an agreement was also executed between them. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.5.2012, the respondent No. 4 has declared that the land in question is free from Scheme No. 169-B and the petitioners are free to develop/construct therein and for which, the IDA was not having any objection.
6. The petitioners got surprised to receive the letter No. 2360 by which respondents No. 3 and 4 restrained them to proceed with the development/construction over the land in question on the basis of NOC dated 24.5.2012 on the ground that the matter has again been placed before the Board. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with the impugned order dated 22.8.2013 by wh
