ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions are involved in all these petitions, they are being heard analogously. For the sake of convenience, documents and annexures referred to in Writ Petition No.11975/2010 are being referred to.

(2.) Challenging the Notification dated 8.2.2007 ? Annexure P/6, issued by the Bhopal Development Authority under section 50(4) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam of 1973'); and, the letter-dated 30.7.2010 ? Annexure P/8 issued by the Bhopal Development Authority under section 56 of the Adhiniyam of 1973, petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, a perusal of Section 56 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 indicates that the words used in the said scheme are 'may' and not 'shall'. That being so, the provision is 'directory' in nature and is not 'mandatory'. If it is found that the act of the respondents has adversely affected certain class of persons, certainly a direction can be issued for extending the period fixing the procedure for acquisition, for a limited period to enable the petitioners and other land owners to participate in the process of acquisition by mutual negotiation. To that extent, petitioners have a right to be granted the relief, as the benefit statutorily accruing to them by virtue of the initial draft notification is being taken away on technical consideration.