VIRENDRA YADAV Vs. JDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the action of the respondents in not releasing 0.405 Hectare of land situated in Khasra No.55/3 and various other land as indicated in paragraph 5.1 of the writ petition, petitioners have filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that the land in question has been taken over by JDA for the purpose of implementing a Scheme known as Scheme No.14, and as the Scheme has lapsed by operation of time, it is stated that the land be returned back to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that even though the land is included in the Scheme, but the Scheme has not been implemented, they are still in possession and seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from dis-possessing them, this petition has been filed. Respondents have filed reply and have tried to justify their action and it is stated by them that the Scheme has been implemented in part and part implementation of the Scheme is still in progress. They have tried to emphasize that the land of the petitioner has been taken over and part implementation of the Scheme is going on. Even though various contentions are put forth in the writ petition and the reply filed, it is not necessary for this Court to advert to consider this question for the simple reason that the question with regard to the same Scheme namely Scheme No.14 has been considered by a Bench of this Court in Writ

(2.) PETITION No. 4430/2008 [M/s GSB Construction Private Limited Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority and another] and by order-dated 9.4.2013, after taking note of the provisions of section 54 of the MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, it has been held by this Court that under the aforesaid provision of section 58, if the Development Authority fails to commence or implement a town development scheme within a period of two years or completes its implementation within a period of five years from the date of Notification of the final scheme under section 50, on expiry of period of two years or five years, as the case may be, the Scheme automatically lapses by virtue of law. In paragraph 6 of the order, this Court has dealt with the matter in the following manner: