NIRAJ DESAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT facts of the case as stated in the petition are that petitioner is owner of land bearing survey Nos. 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 226, 228, 45/5, 45/6 and 45/7 situated at Village Bicholi Hapsi, Tehsil and District Indore. It is alleged that the petitioner moved an application for grant of colonization licence under the provisions of section 60-B of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (in short "Act, 1993") for development of the colony over the land in question. Pursuant to the said application, SDO Revenue, Indore directed the petitioner to deposit a fee of Rs. 3,000/- and also to produce bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- which was complied with by the petitioner by depositing requisite amount and also by furnishing the bank guarantee on 19.8.2004. It is submitted that thereafter Gram Panchayat directed the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- for grant of NOC for carrying on colonization within the area of Gram Panchayat Bicholi Hapsi. Pursuant to the said direction, petitioner deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the concerned Gram Panchyaat on 20.8.2004. It is alleged that after depositing the requisite amount SDO Revenue, Indore granted colonization licence under section 61-B of the Act, 1993. Further case of the petitioner is that petitioner moved an application for grant of development permission dated 20.8.2004, which was forwarded by SDO Indore to respondent No. 2 on 20.8.2004 itself. Vide letter dated 10.9.2004, the petitioner was asked by respondent No. 2 to submit further information mentioning in the said letter. It is alleged that apart from other informations it was also asked to submit NOC from Indore Development Authority. It is submitted that reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22.12.2004, wherein all the queries raised by respondent No. 2 in the letter dated 10.9.2004 as furnished except the submission of NOC of Indore Development Authority. For which it was mentioned that it is not required. It is submitted that inspite of lapse of substantial time, no permission has been granted by the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that under section 30 (5) of MP Nagar Tatha Gram NIvesh Adhiniyam, 1973, which shall be referred (hereinafter as "Nivesh Adhiniyam"), petitioner is holding the deemed permission. The other ground which was taken in the petition was to the effect that the land in question has been incorporated in Scheme No. 164 of the respondent No. 3, which is illegal. So far as this ground is concerned, learned counsel submits that this point has been decided by this Court in WP NO. 04/ 2005 vide order dated 17.5.2006, whereby it has been observed by this Court that the resolution passed by respondent No. 3 under section 50 (1) of the Act is valid. Learned counsel submits that in view of this the petitioner is not challenging the validity of the declaration under section 50 (2) of the Act.

(2.) SHRI Asudhani submits that the respondent No. 2 again compelled the petitioner to submit the NOC from the Indore Development Authority, while it is not the legal requirement. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Raipur v. State of M.P. and others [AIR 1989 MP 163], wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with the following directions :