HIND HOUSING CO OP SOCY LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society, respondent No. 3 Jabalpur Development Authority (J.D.A.) is duly constituted under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (Act No. 23 of 1973). In furtherance of its object of providing housing accommodation in city of Jabalpur, the J.D.A. brought into force a Housing Scheme No. 47, popularly known as the 'Madan Mahal Scheme'. The land covered under the scheme belonged to Shri Virendra Yadav and others. On 3rd Oct. 1983, the J.D.A. acting under S.50(2) of the Act published in local newspapers its intention to bring about the Housing Scheme No. 47. The petitioner society came forward to take up the building activity in terms of that scheme and on Nov. 30, 1983, entered into an agreement with the J.D.A. in that behalf. The J.D.A. entered into possession of the land and then furnished a lay out to the petitioner society for development of the land. The site was to be developed as a residential area in accordance with the master plan. The lay out was sanctioned by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning and the scheme was approved. The petitioner society actually started developing the site for residential buildings as per the sanctioned plan and incurred expenses in so doing. It appears that because the site in question is a part of the Madan Mahal hills situated near Sangram Sagar and the old fort and palace of Raja Madan Shah and is known for its scenic beauty, certain persons interested in preserving that beauty, started agitation against the scheme in local newspaper. The State Government was also approached. A writ bearing Miscellaneous Petition No. 628 of 1984, was filed in the High Court fur quashing the Scheme No. 47. The J.D.A. and the State Government were made parties. They supported the scheme as then framed. Meanwhile, the State Government, vide order dt. 7-3-1984, in exercise of powers under S.73 of the Act, suspended the operation of the scheme and also issued a direction that any work undertaken by any contractor is furtherance of that scheme be also suspended with immediate effect. That order obviously affected the petitioner society who immediately rushed to this Court and filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 1121 of 1984 challenging that order suspending that scheme. Both these petitions were linked for hearing together. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 628 of 1984, the court issued a direction to the State Government to consider and finalise that scheme and the petitioner and the persons agitating against the introduction of that scheme were asked to approach the State Government. On 4-8-1984, this court directed the State Government to take a final decision in the matter. By order dt. 31-10-1984, passed in exercise of powers under S.74 of the Act, the State Government reached a conclusion that the scheme in question (Scheme No. 47) was not duly and legally framed in accordance with the provisions of S.50 of the Act. It, therefore, held that it is only after the scheme is duly framed after inviting objections and taking them into consideration that the land could be acquired under the said scheme for its implementation.

(2.) On receipt of that matter back from the State Government, the J.D.A. published the draft development scheme in newspaper inviting objections. Objections were filed. These objections were heard by a committee of three persons. That committee ultimately finalised the scheme after taking those objections into consideration and modified that draft scheme implementing a few of the objections. The J.D.A. then approved that scheme as per report of that committee and the scheme was finally published as required by S.50(7) of the Act. It is claimed by the J.D.A. that the scheme now finalised seeks to preserve the environmental beauty, prevent any soil erosion, the wind channel is prevented by limiting the height of the buildings, and care has been taken to preserve the famous balancing rock. On 7-10-1985 the Director, Town and Country Planning, M.P. apprised the State Government that the Scheme No. 47 proposed by the J.D.A. and finally published under S.50(7) of the Act, was not included in Jabalpur Master Plan (Land use map). The area covered under the scheme was either the conservation or of Madan Mahal hills or was the old residential area. The Director, therefore, recommended that it will not be just to include that area in any housing scheme and, therefore, recommended that the continuance of the scheme would be contrary to the Master Plan. This recommendation was accepted by the State Government. By order dt. 25-11-1985 (Document No. 15 to the petition), the State Government in the department of Housing and Environment, did not accord approval to that scheme and opined that it would not be in the public interest to accord permission to that housing scheme. Consequently, that scheme was revoked.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the order passed by the State Government (Document No. 15) on many counts. At the first place, it was stated that since the State Government has after considering the proposal, directed the scheme to be finalised, it will not be open in exercise of powers under S.52 of the Act to say that the Scheme No. 47 is not in public interest. It was added that due to previous conduct the State Government is estopped to say that the scheme is not in public interest or that it is in violation of the master plan. The second ground of attack is that the order passed is a non-speaking order, wholly unsupported by reasons and is absolutely arbitrary. Since the authority passing that order is quasi-judicial, the order so passed must be supported by reasons. Thirdly, it was stated that the order is in violation of proviso to S.52 of the Act as the J.D.A. afforded no opportunity of hearing. It is in violation of natural justice. The petitioner also makes a grievance that it also ought to have been heard when it was known to the Government that it has spent a considerable amount in developing the plot. It was finally stated that the grounds stated in Documents 14 and 15 leading to the revocation of the scheme are non-existent. The order passed is, therefore, said to be without any basis.