AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,,,,,,
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following relief :-",,,,,,,,,
“(a) That, the impugned order dated 27.8.2012 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Respondent No.1 be set aside.",,,,,,,,,
(b) That, the Recommendation of the allegedCOMMITTEE as well as the Comments of Respondent No.2 as mentioned in Annexure P/2 be set",,,,,,,,,
aside.,,,,,,,,,
(c) That, the Recommendation of the ExtraLegal Committee as described in para 5.17 be quashed.",,,,,,,,,
(d) That, the land use of subject land bedirected to Residential.",,,,,,,,,
(e)Such other relief and relieves which this Honourable Court deems fitâ€,,,,,,,,,
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners of the land being a parcel of Survey Nos.26/2, 27, 28, 29/3, 29/5, 29/2/K, 29/3/K, 30/2 and",,,,,,,,,
31/2, having a total area of 1.874 Hectare in village Pipliarao, Tehsil and District Indore.",,,,,,,,,
The respondent No.2, Director, Town and Country Planning, prepared the Draft Development Plan called the 'Indore Vikas Yojna 2021 (Draft)' in",,,,,,,,,
terms of Section 14 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (herein after referred as 'the Adhiniyam'), which was published in M.P.",,,,,,,,,
gazette on 13.7.2006. The plan was prepared after obtaining GIS reports from ISRO and physical survey of the lands of Indore City. The land in,,,,,,,,,
question was proposed for “Residential†use in the said Draft Plan, and the same is marked in red colour on the land use map of Draft",,,,,,,,,
Development Plan.,,,,,,,,,
After publication of “Draft Planâ€, a committee constituted under Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, invited and heard objections and suggestion of",,,,,,,,,
the Draft Plan. Since, the land in question was already earmarked for “Residential†purpose in the Draft Plan, there was no reason or occasion",,,,,,,,,
for the petitioners to raise any objection to the proposed use. No other objection / suggestion were received against the designated land use,,,,,,,,,
“Subject Land†as “Residential†in the Draft Plan. The report was sent to the Director along with the modified plan, and thereafter the",,,,,,,,,
Director sent the report and modified plan to the State Government for final approval. In this process neither the Committee nor Director could change,,,,,,,,,
the land use in question as there is no objection received against the 'Residential' use of the subject land. After approval from the State Government,,,,,,,,,
final plan Indore Vikas Yojna, 2021 was published in the M.P. gazette on 1.1.2008 under Section 19(5) of the Adhiniyam. As per land use certificate,",,,,,,,,,
the land in question is designated for “City Park†under the “Recreational†land use in the final plan. As per “Draft Planâ€, the land in",,,,,,,,,
question was earmarked “Residential†and thereafter, the State Government inspite of any objection, modified the same as “Recreationalâ€",,,,,,,,,
land use in the final plan and, therefore, it was mandatory for inviting objection and suggestion in respect of such modification under Section 19(2) of",,,,,,,,,
the Adhiniyam for such modifications.,,,,,,,,,
The petitioners challenged the aforesaid change in the land use from “Residential†in the Draft Plan to “Recreational†in the Final Plan in,,,,,,,,,
W.P.No.1299 of 2008, which was disposed of with W.P.No.1153 of 2008 by order dated 17.6.2008 in the following terms :-",,,,,,,,,
“(I) The petitioners,or any other persons, who though have not approached the court but are similarly situated, who find that original land user",,,,,,,,,
mentioned in the draft Development Plan has subsequently been changed, depriving them of their right to file objections, may now file their objections",,,,,,,,,
before the State Government. It would be open to the owners/objectors to raise objection only with regard to the change of the land user from that as,,,,,,,,,
proposed in the original draft plan and also to object that the changed land user was either impermissible in law or was not suitable for the,,,,,,,,,
Development Plan. However, the owners would not be permitted to raise any other objections, except with regard to change of the land user.â€",,,,,,,,,
(II) If any such objections are filed before the State Government by the writ petitioners or other owners, who might have not approached this Court,",,,,,,,,,
but are similarly situated, on or before July 4, 2008, then the State Government shall take into consideration the objections filed by such persons. Such",,,,,,,,,
objections shall be deemed to have been filed under Section 19(2) of the Act and shall be dealt with accordingly.,,,,,,,,,
(III)After taking into consideration the objections, the State Government shall pass appropriate orders in this regard, either accepting the said",,,,,,,,,
objections or rejecting the same, in accordance with law. If the objections filed by the land owners are accepted by the State Government, then the",,,,,,,,,
requisite amendment in the final Development Plan, 2021, shall be carried out, consequently, and shall be notified, in accordance with law. Such",,,,,,,,,
modified and notified Development Plan shall be treated to be final Development Plan for all intents and purposes for such owners whose objections,,,,,,,,,
have been accepted.,,,,,,,,,
(IV) It is also agreed between the learned Senior Counsel for the parties that in case, the objections are received by the State Government as above,",,,,,,,,,
then the State Government shall make an endeavor to dispose of the aforesaid objections on or before September 30, 2008.â€",,,,,,,,,
The review petition filed by the respondents was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.11.2008 (Annexure P/11). Thereafter, they challenged the order of",,,,,,,,,
the learned writ Court by filing Writ Appeal No.805 of 2009. The Division Bench of this court vide order dated 18.2.2010, modified the order of the",,,,,,,,,
learned writ court and directed to constitute Committee under Section 17A to consider the case, at the stage of Section 18(2) and then, the Director to",,,,,,,,,
forward it to the State Government to decide the same, in accordance with law.",,,,,,,,,
Relevant paragraphs of the order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.805 of 2009 reads as under :-,,,,,,,,,
“8. In the instant matters we are not inclined to interfere as impugned order is based on consent, concession has been given particularly in view of",,,,,,,,,
the fact that what committee and the Director had finalized on which objections were not invited at any point of time, though State Government has",,,,,,,,,
not modified the development plan submitted by the Director as modified under Section 17-A and Section 18 of Adhiniyam, we find that the direction",,,,,,,,,
given by the learned Single Judge with agreement with respect to hearing of the objections of the petitioners, is proper. We also permit intervenors to",,,,,,,,,
raise the objections, however, as submitted State Government cannot be said to be appropriate authority. The objections have to be basically",,,,,,,,,
considered by the Committee constituted under section 17-A of Adhiniyam. As the Committee is a larger body and well equipped with the local,,,,,,,,,
situation considering its constitution, it s considered appropriate as prayed to direct the Committee to consider the objections at the stage of Section",,,,,,,,,
18(2) and then Director to forward it to the State Government. It would not be necessary to decide each and every objection by a separate order. The,,,,,,,,,
procedure for deciding such objection at public hearing have to be followed. The objections can by and large be decided by a common order in,,,,,,,,,
accordance with procedural requirement and then appropriate suggestions have to be made. The State Government is ill equipped to consider the,,,,,,,,,
objection for the first time without their being report from the committee or from the Director. Since learned Single Judge has permitted the other,,,,,,,,,
objectors also to file the objection if any, on or before 4.7.2008, same shall be placed before the Committee at the stage of Section 18(3), who shall",,,,,,,,,
submit its opinion to the Director and the Director to submit it to the State Government, in accordance with law, thereafter, the State Government has",,,,,,,,,
to take steps in accordance with law. The plan so prepared has to be final with respect to all the incumbents not with respect to the objectors only. Let,,,,,,,,,
objections be considered and requisite report be made by the Committee and Director within three months from today to the State Government and,,,,,,,,,
State Government to take decision on it as expeditiously as possible.,,,,,,,,,
The Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No (s).22768 of 2010, filed against the order dated 18.2.2010, passed in W.A.No.805 of 2009, was dismissed by",,,,,,,,,
the Apex Court on 20.5.2010. Order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the Apex Court reads as under :-,,,,,,,,,
vkifRr
dzekad","vkifRrdrkZ
dk uke ,oa
irk","xzke [kljk
dzekad ,oa
jdck","vkifRr dk laf{kIr
fooj.k","Ek-iz- uxj rFkk
xzke fuos""k
vf/kfu;e 1973 dh
/kkjk 17&d
¼1½ xfBr
lfefr dk er",,,,,
461
izkfIr
dzekad
116 fn-","Nilesh Jain
 Jh fuys""k
tSu firk Jh
jes""kpUnz th","Piplyarao
fiiY;kjko
26@2]27]28]
29@3]29@5]","gekjh Hkwfe dk izk#i
fodkl ;kstuk esa
Hkwfe mi;ksx
vkoklh; izLrkfor fd;k
x;k FkkA ftlls ge lger
gksus ds dkj.k geus
vkifRr izLrqr ugha
dhA","lHkh lfefr ds
lnL;ksa dk er gS
fd] pfwad bl
Hkfwe ds [kljs
ds 'k""sk Hkkx ij
jkT; 'kklu }kjk
gkLs Vy ds
fuekZ.k dh
vuqefr iwoZ esa
nh xbZ gS o
izLrkfor izk#i esa
bls vkoklh; crk;k
x;k FkkA vr%
bls vkoklh; fd;k
tkuk mfpr
gkxs k fdUrq bl
Hkfwe dk dkbs
Z Hkh Hkkx ugj
HkaMkjk ls 30
ehVj esa vkrk gk
s rk s mls gfjr
{k=s gh j[kk",,,,,
01@7@
08","tSu 2- jh
fizrs""k tSu
firk","29@2@K29
3@K]30@2]","fdUrq vaxhd`r fodkl
;kstuk&2021 esa
gekjh",,,,,,
,"Jh jes""kpUnz
tSu 3- Jh
jktsUnz firk
Jh jes""kpUnz
tSu 4- Jhefr
pesyhckbZ
ifr Jh
jes""kpUnz
tSu irk&
132]
csdq.V/kke
dkWyksuh]
bUnkSj","31@2
1]874
gsDVs;j","Hkwfe dk mi;ksx
gesa lquokbZ dk volj
fn;s fcuk vkeksn
izeksn dj fn;k x;k tks
fd fof/k vuq#i ugha
gSA vr% mls vkoklh;
fd;k tk;
D;ksafd gekjk
Hkwfe dk mi;ksx
iwoZ fodkl
;kstuk esa vkeksn
izeksn
Fkk fdUrq mls 32
o""kksZ esa vkeksn
izeksn gsrq fodflr
ugha fd;k tk ldk ,oa
,sls gh dqN izdj.kksa
esa vkeksn izeksn
mi;ksx dh Hkwfe;ksa
dk Hkqfe mi;ksx jkT;
'kklu ds }kjk vkeksn
izeksn ls vkoklh;
¼foU/kkpy uxj]
xzke
lqYdk[ksM+h½
rFkk lkoZtfud ,oa
v)ZlkoZtfud
¼vUtqeu lSQ
nkmdh cksgjk
lekt½gsrq ifjofrZr
fd;k x;k gS vr%
gekjh Hkwfe dk
Hkwfe mi;ksx
vaxhd`r fodkl ;kstuk
esa vkoklh; fd;k
tkosA",,,,,,
State Government from 'Recreational City Park' to 'Residential'. With the aforesaid, he prayed that the impugned order Annexure P/1, dated",,,,,,,,,
27.8.2012, be quashed and the respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to accept the recommendation of the committee constituted under Section 17A of",,,,,,,,,
the Adhiniyam. 17. The submission on behalf of the State Government was that the power of the State Government is very wide. It is entitled either to,,,,,,,,,
sanction draft development plan or change the proposed use of land while publishing final development plan. The order passed by the State,,,,,,,,,
Government is just and proper and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.,,,,,,,,,
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.,,,,,,,,,
It is not in dispute that in proposed development plan of Town and Country Planning, the land use of the land in question was for 'Residential'",,,,,,,,,
purpose. In 2008, final development plan was published in which the land use is changed from 'Residential' to 'Recreational' use. The Division Bench",,,,,,,,,
of this Court in Writ Appeal No.818 of 2009, vide order dated 18.2.2010, directed for constitution of the committee under Section 17A of the",,,,,,,,,
Adhiniyam, who shall submit its opinion to the Director and the Director to submit it to the State Government in accordance with law, thereafter, the",,,,,,,,,
State Government has to take steps in accordance with law. The committee after considering the objection and hearing of the parties have suggested,,,,,,,,,
to change the land use to 'Residential'. The same has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. The Director and the State Government without,,,,,,,,,
assigning any reason passed the impugned order whereas, in some of the matters on identical circumstances, the report of the committee constituted",,,,,,,,,
under Section 17-A was accepted and passed an appropriate order.,,,,,,,,,
It is true that the State Government is not bound by such opinion and entitled to take its own decision in the matter provided there is material,,,,,,,,,
available on record to form opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan was necessary. Formation of opinion is a condition,,,,,,,,,
precedent for setting the law in motion proposing substantial modifications in the draft development plan.,,,,,,,,,
The formation of the opinion by the State,,,,,,,,,
Government should reflect intense application of mind. In the case in hand, there was no material before the State Government for its consideration",,,,,,,,,
that it has become necessary not to accept the recommendation of the committee when in identical circumstances, the same was accepted and the",,,,,,,,,
permission was granted, I am of the view that there has been no formation of the opinion by the State Government to reject the recommendation of",,,,,,,,,
the committee constituted under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam.,,,,,,,,,
I have also considered the return filed by the State Government. There has been no material available with the State Government, in rejecting the",,,,,,,,,
proposal of the committee. There is nothing on record suggesting as to what public interest parameter weighed with the State Government.,,,,,,,,,
On due consideration of the fact and material available on record, it is established that the State Government took the action proposing to reject the",,,,,,,,,
proposal of the committee constituted under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam without formulating any opinion.,,,,,,,,,
The writ petitioners are deprived of their right to use the land for 'Residential' purpose for a period of more than 32 years. The authority included,,,,,,,,,
the land in residential zone and in adjoining area, the plan has been revised by the State Government from time to time. In some of the cases, the State",,,,,,,,,
Government accepted the report of the same committee constituted under Section 17A whereas in the present case, the constituted committee has",,,,,,,,,
given a report in favour of the petitioner as no one raised any objection and members of the committee unanimously decided to accept the proposal,,,,,,,,,
and recommended the writ petitioners to change the land use from 'Recreational' to 'Residential', but the State Government without any reason turned",,,,,,,,,
down the aforesaid proposal knowing well that the adjoining land owners are utilizing their land for residential purpose. The reasons for the formation,,,,,,,,,
of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence,,,,,,,,,
The respondent No.4 in his reply very categorically admitted that, Scheme No.95 was dropped. It is not disputed by the State that the adjoining",,,,,,,,,
area has been declared as residential.,,,,,,,,,
In the reply filed on behalf of the State Government, it was averred that the action as per Section 18 and 19 of the Adhiniyam. The State",,,,,,,,,
Government though it fit to classify the land in question for recreational use, park area, without considering the fact that there is a specific pocket for",,,,,,,,,
recreational and park has been developed by them. There is nothing on record suggesting as to what public interest parameter weighed with the State,,,,,,,,,
Government. The State Government took the action proposing to make substantial modifications to the plan without forming any opinion, which is a",,,,,,,,,
condition precedent for the use of power under the provision of the Adhiniyam. The impugned action has been taken by the State Government without,,,,,,,,,
applying its mind to the aspect of necessity or without forming honest opinion on that aspect, it will, I have no doubt, be void. In identical",,,,,,,,,
circumstances, the coordinate Bench of this Court considering the question involved in this writ petition in great detail passed the following order in",,,,,,,,,
W.P.No.2785 of 2016 (Ghanshyamdas Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.) :-,,,,,,,,,
“The undisputed fact of the case reveals that the petitioner is a registered trust registered under the M.P. Public Registration Act, 1951 and the",,,,,,,,,
respondents are State of Madhya Pradesh and the authorities under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. It is also an",,,,,,,,,
undisputed fact that in light of the provisions as contained under the the Act, 1973, in the year 1975, development plan 1991 was introduced and the",,,,,,,,,
land of the petitioner-trust was designated as regional park. The total land owned by the petitioner trust is 7.78 Acres and the other portion of the land,,,,,,,,,
which was designated as regional park is 4.5 Acres owned by Ms. Seema Sanghi.,,,,,,,,,
Facts further establish that the land could not be used nor was required for regional park and the petitioner applied to the State Government under,,,,,,,,,
Section 35 of the Act, 1973 and requested to delete the designation of the said land as regional park and permit the petitioner to use the said land for",,,,,,,,,
residential purpose and the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 35 of the Act, 1973, deleted the said land use and pass",,,,,,,,,
an order on 16.12.1980 permitting the petitioner to use the land for residential purpose. The aforesaid order was passed by the State Government in,,,,,,,,,
exercise of powers under Section 35 of the Act, 1973. Section 35 of the Act, 1973 reads as under:-â€",,,,,,,,,
“35. Deletion of reservation of designated land from draft or final development plan. â€" (1) The appropriate authority, if it is satisfied that the land",,,,,,,,,
is not or is no longer required for the public purpose for which it is plan, or the final development plan or zoning plan may request â€"",,,,,,,,,
(a) the Director to sanction the deletion of such designation or reservation or allocation from the draft development plan or zoning plan; or,,,,,,,,,
(b) the State Government to sanction the deletion of such designation or reservation or allocation from the final development plan or zoning plan.,,,,,,,,,
(2) On receipt of such request from the appropriate authority, the Director or, as the case may be, the State Government may make an order",,,,,,,,,
sanctioning the deletion of such designation or reservation or allocation from the relevant plans :,,,,,,,,,
Provided that, the Director or, as the case may be, the State Government may, before making any order, make such enquiry as he it may consider",,,,,,,,,
necessary and satisfy himself/itself that such reservation or designation or allocation is no longer necessary in the public interest.,,,,,,,,,
(3) Upon an order under sub-section (2) being made, the land shall be deemed to be released from such designation, reservation or, as the case may",,,,,,,,,
be, allocation and shall become available to the owner for the purpose of development as otherwise permissible in the case of adjacent land under the",,,,,,,,,
relevant plan.â€,,,,,,,,,
It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid order was passed in respect of the land owned by the trust as well as Ms. Seema Sanghi and Ms. Seema,,,,,,,,,
04/08/08,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
,"VªLVh ?
ku';kenkl
lka?kh ees
kfsj;y
psfjVoy
VªLV 25]
iykfl;k eus
jkMs ]
bUnkjS","bUnkSj
dLck
1555 ls
1578 ,
oa
1580
jdck
7-
72
,dM","izk:i ;kstuk esa
Hkwfe izk:i
;kstuk esa
Hkwfe mi;ksx
xzhu csYV m?
kku izLrkfor
fd;k x;k gSAÂ
bl Hkwfe ds vkl
ikl ds {k=s esa
vf/kdk'ka
vkoklh;
dkWyksfu;k
fodflr
gksdj Hkou cus
gS rFkk iwoZ
esa vkokl ,oa
i;kZoj.k
foHkkx ds
vkns'k dza-
6154@32
fnukad 16-12-
80 }kjk
vf/kfu;e&73 dh
/kkjk
35¼2½ ds
varxZr {ksf=;
m?kku dh ifjf/k
ls gVkdj vkoklh;
mi;ksx esa
ifjorZu fd;k x;k
gSAÂ mDr
vkns'k izkesljh
Lvkiy dh Js.kh
esa vkrk gSA
iwoZ esa Hkh
fodkl ;kstuk ds
izdk'ku ds le;]
VªLV }kjk
vkifRr;ka izLrqr
dh x;h FkhAÂ
ijUrq izk:i
;kstuk;s fujLr
gksus ls fujkdj.k
ugh gksA",vkokl,m|ku,"ekf.k ckx
isysl ds
fudV gksus
ds
dkj.k
Hkwfe dk
mi;ksx
izLrkfor gS
A","Pwafd 'kklu ds }kjk
Hkwfe dk mi;ksx igys
gh vkoklh; fd;k tk
pqdk gS vr% mls
vkoklh; j[kk tkuk
mfpr gksxk D;ksafd
mlls yx dj vkoklh;
fuokl fLFkr gS A",,
be designated as residential as in the matter, an order was passed by the State Government on 16.12.1980.",,,,,,,,,
The letter of the Joint Director dated 04.07.2009 recommending for designation of the land as residential is reproduced as under:-,,,,,,,,,
dk;kZy; la;qDr lpa kyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuo's k] ftyk dk;kZy; bUnkSj e-iz-,,,,,,,,,
dzekda @ 3783 uxzkfu@09Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â bUnkSj fnukad 04&7&09,,,,,,,,,
 izfr],,,,,,,,,
lpa kyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuo's k] Hkkis ky e0iz0,,,,,,,,,
fo""k;%&Â dLck bUnkSj ds ekf.kd ckx jkMs ij fLFkr [kljk dzekda 1555] 1556] 1557] 1558@1] 1558@2] 1559] 1560] 1561] 1562] 1563] 1564] 1565]",,,,,,,,,
1566] 1567] 1567] 1569] 1570] 1571] 1572] 1573] 1574 iSdh] 1575 iSdh] 1576 iSdh ,oa 1578 dqy jdck 7-79 ,dM Hkfwe dk Hkwfe mi;kxs fodkl ;kts",,,,,,,,,
uk& 2021 esa e-iz- 'kklu ds vkn's k dzekda 6154@6552@32@80 Hkksiky fnukad 16-12-80 ds lna HkZ esa Hkwfe mi;kxs esa vkekns &izekns ls,,,,,,,,,
vkoklh; fd, tkus ds lca /ak eAsa",,,,,,,,,
lanHkZ%&Â vkosnd dk vkons u fnukda 2-6-2009 ,oa nwjHkk""k ij fnukad 1-7-2009 dks fn, x, funZ's kA",,,,,,,,,
¼1½  mijkDs r fo""k;kUrxZr lna HkZ esa mYy[s k gS fd fo""k;kUrxZr Hkfwe ds Hkfwe mi;kxs ifjorZu ckcr~ lqJh jkfxuh lk?a kh&VªLVh",,,,,,,,,
';ke nkl lk?a kh ees kfsj;y pjs Vs hcy VªLV dh,,,,,,,,,
vkSj ls ekuuh; e=a hth ds le{k izLrqr vkons u dh izfrfyfi bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh,,,,,,,,,
gSA,,,,,,,,,
 ¼2½  iz'uk/khu Hkwfe] izLrqr nLrkots ksa vuqlkj VªLV dh gSA,,,,,,,,,
¼3½ iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk bUnkSj fodkl ;kts uk&1991 esa Hkfwe mi;kxs vkekns &izekns vUrxZr ikdZ gsrw izLrkfor FkkA,,,,,,,,,
¼4½ iz'uk/khu Hkfwe dk Hkfwe mi;kxs vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx ds vkn's k dzekad 6154@6552@32@80 fnukda 16-12-80 }kjk e-iz- uxj rFkk",,,,,,,,,
xzke fuo's k vf/kfu;e&1973 dh /kkjk 35¼2½ vUrxZr ykds fgr esa vkekns &izekns ¼ikdZ½ ls fudkydj vkoklh; ifjofrZr fd;k x;k FkkA,,,,,,,,,
¼5½bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk izk:iksa esa iz'uk/khu Hkfwe dk Hkfwe mi;ksx vkeksn&izeksn grs w gh izLrkfor fd;k x;k FkkA,,,,,,,,,
¼6½ bUnkSj fodkl ;kts uk&2021 esa Hkh bl Hkfwe dk Hkfwe mi;ksx vkeksn&izeksn vUrxZr,,,,,,,,,
{ks=h; m/kku izLrkfor fd;k x;k FkkA iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds bl izLrkfor mi;kxs ds fo:) VªLV }kjk ml s vkoklh; fd;s tkus gsrw vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ,,,,,,,,,
FkhA izLrqr vkifRr dh Nk;k izfr layXu izfs""kr gS ¼ifjf'k""V&1½A vkifRr ds lkFk vkn's k fnukad 16-12-80 dh Nk;k izfr Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ",,,,,,,,,
FkhA bl vkifRr ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&17&d¼1½ vUrxZr xfBr lfefr dh lquokbZ esa iz'uk/khu Hkfwe dk Hkfwe mi;kxs vkeksn&izeksn ls vkoklh; fd,",,,,,,,,,
tkus dh vuq'kla k dh xbZ FkhAÂ lfefr dh vuq'kla k lEcU/kh i`""B dh",,,,,,,,,
Nk;k izfr lyXu izfs""kr gS ¼ifjf'k""V&2½ jkT; 'kklu }kjk fnukda 1-1-2008 dks tks bUnkSj fodkl ;kts uk&2021 ykxw dh xbZ gS",,,,,,,,,
mlesa iqu% iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk Hkfwe mi;kxs vkeksn&izeksn vUrxZr {ks=h; m/kku izLrkfor gSA;g Hkh lgh gS fd bUnkSj fodkl ;kts uk&2021 esa bl,,,,,,,,,
;kstuk ds ykxw gkus s ds iow Z tks Hkwfe mi;kxs ifjorZu@mikra j.k fd;s x;s Fks mUgs ekU; fd;k x;k gSA vr% mijkDs r fLFkfr dks n`f""Vxr j[krs gq,",,,,,,,,,
jkT; 'kklu }kjk tufgr esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 16-12-80 }kjk Hk&w mi;kxs ifjorZu dks ekU; djus ij jkT; 'kklu leqfpr fopkj dj ldrk gSA,,,,,,,,,
iz'uk/khu Hkfwe dks bUnkSj fodkl ;kts uk&2021 esa fLFkfr n'kkZus okys ekufp=¼ifjf'k""V&3½ rFkk iz'uk/khu Hkfwe dk izLrkfor Hkfwe n'kkZus",,,,,,,,,
okyk [kljk ekufp= ¼ifjf'k""V&4½ layXu",,,,,,,,,
izfs""kr gSA",,,,,,,,,
 layXu%& l;a qDr lpa kyd,,,,,,,,,
uxj rFkk xzke fuo's k,,,,,,,,,
 dzekda @  uxzkfu@09] bUnkSj e0iz0,,,,,,,,,
fyfi%&,,,,,,,,,
izeq[k lfpo] e-iz- 'kklu vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx Hkksiky dh vkSj lpw ukFkZ izfs""krA",,,,,,,,,
l;a qDr lpa kyd,,,,,,,,,
   uxj rFkk xzke fuo's k,,,,,,,,,
           bUnkSj e0iz0,,,,,,,,,
It is pertinent to note that while matter was being considered by the respondents, the respondents in their wisdom preferred a writ appeal i.e. W.A.",,,,,,,,,
No.808/2009 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2010. The matter relating to the petitioner's land use was looked into by the,,,,,,,,,
committee constituted for the purpose and the committee opined that since the land use of the petitioner's land has already been changed by the State,,,,,,,,,
Government, the land use of the petitioner's land should be designated as residential. Report of the committee accepting the objection of the petitioner",,,,,,,,,
is on record (Annexure P-17) and the Director, Town & Country Planning also agreed with the recommendation of the committee and forwarded the",,,,,,,,,
matter for decision to the State Government. The recommendations of the Director are also on record as Annexure P-18.,,,,,,,,,
The State of Madhya Pradesh while considering the opinion of the committee and the Director, Town & Country Planning has divided the various",,,,,,,,,
cases in two different categories i.e. Schedule -A, Schedule- B, Schedule-C and Schedule-D. We consider Category/Schedule-A and",,,,,,,,,
Category/Schedule- B,,,,,,,,,
Category- A:-,,,,,,,,,
The cases where committee and respondent No.2 have rejected the objection and the respondent No.1 has also rejected the same.,,,,,,,,,
Category- B:-,,,,,,,,,
The cases where recommendations for land use were accepted to be made in final plan after hearing the parties under Section 19 (2) of the Act,",,,,,,,,,
1973.,,,,,,,,,
The respondents again committed a mistake by placing the petitioner's case in Category-A. In fact, in case of the petitioner, committee as well as",,,,,,,,,
respondent No.2- Director, Town & Country Planning had allowed the objections of the petitioner and recommended to keep the land use of the",,,,,,,,,
petitioner as residential, meaning thereby, the case of the petitioner was to be included in category B not in categoryA. The petitioner immediately",,,,,,,,,
protested in the matter and submitted a representation to the respondents, however, nothing was done and, therefore, petitioner was again forced to",,,,,,,,,
file a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.8134/13. This Court vide order dated 07.8.2014 has directed the State Government to decide the representation of the,,,,,,,,,
petitioner within 45 days. A committee was constituted by the State Government with,,,,,,,,,
Senior Officers of the Town and Country Planning Department as there were mistakes and irregularities in the final development plan, the committee",,,,,,,,,
on 28.09.2013 after going through the entire record once again held that the petitioner's land use should be designated as residential. However, to the",,,,,,,,,
utter surprise to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents on 28.10.2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioner.",,,,,,,,,
In the considered opinion of this Court, first mistake which has been committed in the matter is that the respondents have ignored the",,,,,,,,,
recommendations of the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning and the Committee constituted in the matter have decided the objections raised by",,,,,,,,,
the petitioner. Petitioner's objections were looked into by the committee and the committee categorically directed for change of land use, hence, by",,,,,,,,,
placing the petitioner in wrong category i.e. Category -A, all further proceedings have taken place.",,,,,,,,,
First committee constituted in the matter as well as the Director, Town & Country Planning have recommended for change of land use after hearing",,,,,,,,,
under Section 19(2) of the Act and, therefore, matter relating to the petitioner should have been included in Category-B not in Category-A, therefore,",,,,,,,,,
in considered opinion of this Court, all further proceedings, which have taken place are pursuant to wrong inclusion of the petitioner's case in",,,,,,,,,
Category-A are bad in law and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.,,,,,,,,,
Another important aspect of the case is that before preparing the development plan, the Director, Town & Country Planning as required under Section",,,,,,,,,
15 is required to prepare the existing land use map. The development plan 2021 was published in official gazette on 13.07.2006 and the Director while,,,,,,,,,
preparing the existing land use map has wrongly prepared the map ignoring the fact that the petitioner's land use has been changed to residential vide,,,,,,,,,
order dated 16.12.1980 passed by the State Government and in all fairness the Director, Town & Country Planning while preparing the development",,,,,,,,,
plan should have reflected the land use as residential and, therefore, on account of mistake committed by the Director, Town & Country Planning",,,,,,,,,
while preparing the existing land use maps, the petitioner is still suffering in the matter.",,,,,,,,,
Not only this, prior to development plan 2021, development plan 1991, which was declared in the year 1975 was in force. After the development plan,",,,,,,,,,
1975, at least in 22 cases, land uses were changed like it was done in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner has given examples of Anjuman Saiff Daudi",,,,,,,,,
bohra School, Maharana Pratap Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, IDA and Bhawalkar CAT karmchari Abhiyant Sangh and in all these cases the land",,,,,,,,,
use was park and the same was changed to residential.,,,,,,,,,
In case of the petitioner again land use was changed in respect of development plan 1991 and the Director submitted the report as required under,,,,,,,,,
Section 50 of the Act incorrectly reflecting the land use as regional park as the same reflects in the order passed by the State Government.,,,,,,,,,
Another important aspect of the case is that after an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2023/2008, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning",,,,,,,,,
has opined that the petitioner's land should be designated a residential as the subsequent committee has recommended the land use as residential and,,,,,,,,,
only because the petitioner's case was placed in wrong category, the petitioner is still suffering. There appears to be total non-appearance of the mind",,,,,,,,,
in the case of the petitioner in not treating the petitioner's land use as residential whereas the land use had already been changed by the State,,,,,,,,,
Government vide order dated 16.12.1980 and the same has been safely ignored by the State Government. In the considered opinion of this Court, the",,,,,,,,,
impugned order passed by the State Government/State has to pave the path of extinction. The surrounding areas including the area of Ms. Seema,,,,,,,,,
Sanghi has been developed as residential and the area, which is surround by residential colony owned by the petitioner cannot be treated as regional",,,,,,,,,
park in the development plan 2021 ignoring the report of the committee, which was a committee constituted for specific purpose by the State",,,,,,,,,
Government.,,,,,,,,,
Resultantly, in light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 28.10.2015",,,,,,,,,
deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.",,,,,,,,,
It is pertinent to note that out of total area 7.78 Acres and 4.5 Acres of which the land use was deleted in 1980, a colony has been established over",,,,,,,,,
4.5 Acres of land and it has been fully developed for residential purpose. Thus, now, total 12.12 Acres land is not available to be developed as regional",,,,,,,,,
park. Not only this, the order of the State Government passed in 1980 has been given a complete go bye and in case of identically placed persons,",,,,,,,,,
respondents have already changed the land use based upon the recommendations of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning and the committee",,,,,,,,,
constituted for the purpose, therefore, the writ petition stands allowed by modifying the land use of the petitioner by treating it as residential.",,,,,,,,,
The impugned order orders Annexure P-19 and P-20 are quashed. The Stat Government is directed to pass an appropriate order designating the land,,,,,,,,,
use of the petitioner as residential within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.,,,,,,,,,
With the aforesaid directions, another writ petition i.e. W.P. No.1606/2016 also stands disposed of. Respondents are directed to issue an appropriate",,,,,,,,,
order in respect of the land use of the petitioner as aforesaid.,,,,,,,,,
On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also the fact that the surrounding area has been developed as Residential and the area which is",,,,,,,,,
surrounded by residential colony owned by the petitioners cannot be treated as Regional Park in the development plan, 2021, ignoring the report of the",,,,,,,,,
committee , which was a committee constituted for the specific purpose by the State Government in pursuance to the order passed by the Division",,,,,,,,,
Bench. Thus, the impugned order (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondents dated 27.8.2012, deserves to the quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.",,,,,,,,,
The State Government is directed to pass an appropriate order designating the land use of the petitioners as 'Residential', within a period of three",,,,,,,,,
months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.,,,,,,,,,
No costs.,,,,,,,,,