INDORE DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAM BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the defensibility and substantiality of the order dated 14-8-2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14605/ 2006, the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred under Section 2 (1) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. The writ appeal was heard by a Division Bench which referred to the facts in issue, the provisions contained in the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Act')especially Section 50 of the said enactment, the stand and stance taken by the contesting parties and the interveners, the view expressed by the learned single Judge and the interpretation placed by him on the proviso added to sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act by the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram nivesh (Sansodhan) Adhiniyam, 2004 on 29-12-2004, the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Indore Development Authority (in short 'the Authority') and the proponement advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of the order of the learned single Judge and also to substantiate and justify how the Scheme No. 132 that was prepared under Section 50 of the Act had lapsed as a consequence of which the land owners acquired the right to get their plans approved for development of the land and thereafter expressed the opinion thus :

(2.) THE expose of facts are that the respondent No. 1 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the orders dated 5-10-2006, and Annexures P-11, P-11-A, and P. 11 -B passed by the State government in exercise of suo motu power of revision whereby it set aside the orders dated 7-7-2006 contained in Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7 to the writ petition passed by the third respondent therein, the joint director, Town and Country Planning, Indore by which the said Authority approved the layout of the proposed development sought by the petitioner in respect of the land in question. It was contended in the writ petition that the petitioner, a partnership firm, is involved in construction business. He is the owner in possession of the land bearing survey Nos. 73/4/2, 74, 75/3 admeasuring 1/237 Hectares, Survey Nos. 83/2, 84/ 2 admeasuring an area of 1. 237 Hectares and Survey No. 66/2 admeasuring an area of 0. 720 Hectare situated at Village khajrana, District - Indore. On 14-5-1993, the Authority had passed a resolution under Section 50 (1) of the Act declaring its intention to prepare a Town Development scheme which came to be numbered as scheme No. 132, The Scheme included the lands of the petitioner. On 28-5-1993, the authority issued a communique/ announcement for publication of its declaration of intention of the Scheme as contemplated under Section 50 (2) of the Act. The Authority, as set forth, took steps for publication and eventually, the Scheme was published in the gazette on 18-6-1993. The survey of the lands comprised in the Scheme was carried out and the development of the Scheme in a draft form was prepared. The draft form of the Scheme was published in the official gazette on 26-5-1995 as envisaged under section 50 (3) of the Act inviting objections and suggestions from the public at large as regards the draft development scheme. After considering the objections and suggestions and also hearing the objections, the authority passed an order on 15-2-2005. There was correspondence between the Authority and the Department of Madhya Pradesh housing and Environment and as the facts would unfold, a resolution dated 29-7-2006 was passed to the effect that no clarification was required from the Department concerned. Ultimately, a final order was passed by the authority on 1-8-2006 regarding approval of the draft scheme which was published in the gazette dated 4-8-2006 under Section 50 (7) of the Act. After the said Scheme was published, the State Government, on the basis of the request made by the Authority, issued a notification dated 8-8-2006 which was published in the Gazette dated 18-8-2006 under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act for acquisition of land.

(3.) WHEN the matter has been proceeding in this manner, certain land-owners filed applications under Section 29 of the Act before the Joint Director. Town and Country planning Department who summoned a reply from the appellant and eventually, in the case of the respondent-writ petitioner, passed an order holding that the applicants were entitled for permission for development under Section 29 of the Act as the scheme had lapsed. The respondent No. 2, the principal Secretary, Housing and Environment department, in exercise of suo motu power of revision conferred on him under Section 32 of the Act, suspended the permission for development and ultimately set aside the order on 7-7-2006. Being dissatisfied with the same, the writ petition was filed by the fourth respondent before the learned single judge who quashed the order on the foundation that after insertion of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act, the authority was required to act fairly and within a reasonable span of time and not sit over the matter without finalizing the same, that it was not the intention of the legislature to give unlimited time to the Authority to act as provided under Section 50 of the act, that the intention is clear that all pending draft schemes were to be completed within a period of one year from the date of the introduction of the proviso, otherwise they would lapse, that even after the introduction of the proviso, the Authority had taken one and a half years to finalise the scheme; and that the doctrine of delay and laches would irrefragably come into play.