HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR D. B. : HON.SHRI JUSTICE P.K. JAISWAL &

HON. SHRI JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA Writ Appeal No.1350/2012 Jabalpur Development Authority Versus Chaitany Chopra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESENCE :

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal , learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R (10/12/2018)

Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.

This intra court Appeal has been filed by the appellant-

Jabalpur Development Authority, against the order dated 30.9.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.14892/2005, by which learned Writ Court on the basis of concession made by counsel for the appellant, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the appellant-Jabalpur Developlment Authority to allot commercial plot and corner plot of the same size to the respondent in another Scheme of the Jabalpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the JDA” for brevity), within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Against this order dated 30.9.2011, Review Petition No.622/2012, was filed by the appellant-JDA, which was also dismissed on 5.10.2012, by holding that the concession made by counsel for the appellant-JDA is binding on the party.

2 : Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued by the appellant-JDA, inviting applications for allotment of residential and commercial plots situated in Scheme No.26, Raksha Nagar, Ranjhi, Jabalpur, of appellant-JDA. By the said advertisement, offers were invited for allotment of several plots. 3 : In response to the said advertisement, the respondent submitted an application in the prescribed form and sought allotment of residential plot No.221, situated in Scheme No.26. Since plot applied for by the respondent was corner plot, he offered 10% extra amount over and above the rate fixed by the JDA. In support of his application, he also submitted an affidavit wherein it was clearly stated that he does not own any other plot/house for residential purpose. After depositing the amount of premium, temporary allotment order was issued in his favour. In the meantime, lay out of Scheme No.26, was revised and approved by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning. In the revised location of plot No.221, changed from corner plot to plot situated between other plots. On 13.1.2004, the aforesaid fact was duly intimated to the respondent. The respondent appeared for execution of lease deed and the same was also duly signed by him, but subsequently respondent started claiming that as per advertisement he had applied for allotment of commercial and corner plot and consequently same should be allotted to him. As no commercial plot was available in Scheme No.26, said request of respondent was not acceded to by the appellant-JDA.

4 : Feeling aggrieved of non-allotment of commercial and corner plot in Scheme No.26, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.14892/2005, on the ground that he is entitled for allotment of commercial & corner plot in terms of advertisement issued by the JDA. After notice, a detailed reply was filed on behalf of the appellant. On 30.9.2011, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant shall accommodate the respondent and shall allot commercial & corner plot of the same size in another Scheme of the JDA. On the basis of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, the Writ Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the appellant to allot commercial & corner plot of the same size to the respondent in another Scheme of the JDA. After passing of the order, a Review Petition No.623/2012 was filed on the ground that learned counsel for the appellant, without taking consent and instructions of appellant, made a statement/concession before the Writ Court and that concession is not binding on the appellant. It is also pointed out that the said statement is al