SUBHASH SINGHANIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to claim the following reliefs:

(2.) AFORESAID reliefs have been claimed on allegations that petitioners are residents of Indore and are social workers. According to petitioners, a Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'master plan of 1991') was sanctioned for the Indore City under Section 19 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as '1973 Adhiniyam' for short) vide Notification dated 1-3-1975. Said Notification was published in Official Gazette and the development plan came into operation and force on 21 -3-1975. The moment the master plan came into force, all development activities including use of land is regulated and governed by the Master Plan and it is binding on all development authorities constituted under 1973 Adhiniyam including local authorities functioning within the planning area. As per master plan large portion of land situated on the right side of A. B. Road (when one travels from Indore to Dewas) in the vicinity of Malhar Garden to Mehta Motors inclusive of Bhagirath Body Builders was reserved for City Park and open space. According to petitioners respondent No. 1 in complete violation of provisions of 1973 Adhiniyam by an administrative fiat dated 2-8-1979 (P-2) changed (he land use of City Park prescribed in near Bhagirath Body Builders into commercial use and the city park was shifted to the other side of the A. B. Road near Megdoot Upvan where now it has been developed. Earlier this area was earmarked for commercial purposes. Taking advantage of marginal change of land use respondent No. 3 Indore Development Authority passed resolution for allotment of one plot under Scheme No. 54 PU 4 in favour of Indian Oil Corporation, respondent No. 5 and forwarded revised lay out for sanction to the Joint Director Town and Country Planning, Indore. After prolonged correspondence on the subject, ultimately vide impugned order dated 5-8-2002, Joint Director Town and Country Planning, Indore sanctioned the revised lay out for construction of Petrol Pump on the plot No. 307 admeasuring 30. 48 m x 30. 48 m near Bhagirath Body Builders under Scheme No. 54 PU 4. According to learned Counsel for petitioners, land use freezes once it is prescribed under the Master Plan. In support of this contention learned Counsel has taken through various provisions of 1973 Adhiniyam. Thus according to petitioner, allotment of plot under Scheme No. 54 PU 4 for commercial purposes is impermissible under the law and can not be allowed to stand. During the pendency of writ petition respondent No. 5 allotted the plot in question in favour of respondent No. 6, therefore, he was also impleaded as one of respondents.

(3.) RESPONDENTS filed their separate replies to oppose the writ petition. Respondents, in their replies justified the action and submitted that so called "change of prescribed land use" as contended by the petitioners is nothing but 'shifting of prescribed land use' from one place to another which is in accordance with the master plan. It was also denied that no changes can be made in the master plan. Respondent No. 5 and the newly added respondent No. 6 have also pleaded that present writ petition in the garb of PIL, is nothing but shadow litigation by the rival dealers who have their retail out let on the other side of A. B. Road. It was also stated in the replies of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that similar writ petitions were filed on earlier occasions which were dismissed by this Court therefore, present writ petition is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. Thus according to all respondents writ petition has no merit and substance and as such it deserves to be dismissed with heavy compensatory costs.