STATE OF M. P. Vs. NILESH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No.2, Director, Town and Country Planning ( In short' T&CP') prepared a Draft Development Plan for the forthcoming 'Indore Master Plan 2021' in terms of Sec. 14 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as '' Adhiniyam, 1973") and published in the M.P. Gazette on 13/7/2006. After the publication of the draft plan a committee constituted under sec. 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 invited objections and suggestions from the general public/ impacted landowners. The respondents are the owner of land bearing Survey No.26/2, 27, 28, 29/3, 29/5, 29/2/K, 29/2/K, 30/2 and 31/2 total area of 1.874 hectares situated in the village Pipliarao, Tehsil and District Indore (hereinafter referred to as '' the land in question''). In the Draft Plan, since the land in question was earmarked for residential purposes, therefore, the respondents had no reason or occasion to raise any objection in respect of land use before the committee. The recommendation of the committee along with comments of the Director T&CP was forwarded to the State Government for final approval under Sec. 19 of the Adhiniyam,1973. After the approval of the State Government, the final plan ' Indore Master Plan 2021' was published in the M.P. Gazette on 1/1/2008 under Sec. 19(5) of the Adhiniyam, 1973.

(2.) The respondents came to know that the land in question has been designated/ reserved for 'City Park' i.e. 'Recreational' purposes in the final Master Plan. The respondents have challenged the aforesaid action by way W.P. No.1299/2008 which was disposed of along with others bunch of Writ Petitions vide order dtd. 17/6/2008 with direction to all landowners to submit an objection as required under sec. 19(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and the State Government has been directed to consider all the objection and pass appropriate order in this regard. It has also been observed that if objections filed by the landowners are accepted by the Government, then the requisite amendment in the final Development Plan, 2021 shall be carried out, and consequently notified as well. The State Government filed a Review Petition of the aforesaid order, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd. 21/11/2008. Thereafter, State Government preferred a bunch of Writ Appeal No.805/2009. The Division Bench of this Court has modified the order of the learned Writ Court and directed the Government of M.P. to constitute a committee under Sec. 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 to consider the cases, at the stage of Sec. 18(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 18/2/2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, The State Government preferred Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. (s).22768/2010 which has been dismissed on 20/5/2010. The Apex Court has declined to interfere with the order of the Writ Court as it was passed with the consent of the parties.

(3.) After the dismissal of the SLP, the State Government had no option but to constitute a committee as contemplated under Sec. 17- A of the Adhiniyam. The 15 members committee has considered all the objections and forwarded its report to the Director T&CP. As per the report, out of 15 members, 11 members have recommended changing the land use of the respondents to residential . Along with the report, the Director, T&CP has sent its comments recommending to keep the land used for recreation purposes. The Government of M.P. vide order dtd. 27/8/2010 has decided that the land in question shall remain ' Recreational' as the Director has given a proper reason for rejection of the recommendation of the Committee. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the respondents have filed this Writ Petition No.1896/2013 before this Court. Vide order dtd. 13/4/2018, the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petition by placing reliance on the judgment passed in W.P.2785/2016 (Ghanshyamdas Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.). The Hon'ble Writ Court has held that the surrounding area of the land in question has already been developed as residential, hence, the land in question which is also surrounded by the aforesaid area cannot be treated as Regional Park in the development plan, 2021. The recommendation of the committee has wrongly been ignored by the Government, hence, the impugned order dtd. 27/8/2012 deserves to be quashed and Government has been directed to pass an appropriate order designating the land use of the petitioner as residential. Facts of W. A. No. 953 of 2018