Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Yadav vs Jabalpur Development Authority on 7 May, 2013
Writ Petition No :: 17914 / 2010
Virendra Yadav and another Vs. JDA and others
07.05.2013.
Shri Mukhtar Ahmed for the petitioners.
Shri Himanshu Mishra for respondent No.1.
Challenging the action of the respondents in not releasing 0.405 Hectare of land situated in Khasra No.55/3 and various other land as indicated in paragraph 5.1 of the writ petition, petitioners have filed this writ petition mainly on the ground that the land in question has been taken over by JDA for the purpose of implementing a Scheme known as Scheme No.14, and as the Scheme has lapsed by operation of time, it is stated that the land be returned back to the petitioners.
It is the case of the petitioners that even though the land is included in the Scheme, but the Scheme has not been implemented, they are still in possession and seeking a direction to restrain the respondents from dis-possessing them, this petition has been filed.
Respondents have filed reply and have tried to justify their action and it is stated by them that the Scheme has been implemented in part and part implementation of the Scheme is still in progress. They have tried to emphasize that the land of the petitioner has been taken over and part implementation of the Scheme is going on.
Even though various contentions are put forth in the writ petition and the reply filed, it is not necessary for this Court to advert to consider this question for the simple reason that the question with regard to the same Scheme namely Scheme No.14 has been considered by a Bench of this Court in Writ 2 Writ Petition No :: 17914 / 2010 Virendra Yadav and another Vs. JDA and others Petition No. 4430/2008 [M/s GSB Construction Private Limited Vs. Jabalpur Development Authority and another] and by order-dated 9.4.2013, after taking note of the provisions of section 54 of the MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, it has been held by this Court that under the aforesaid provision of section 58, if the Development Authority fails to commence or implement a town development scheme within a period of two years or completes its implementation within a period of five years from the date of Notification of the final scheme under section 50, on expiry of period of two years or five years, as the case may be, the Scheme automatically lapses by virtue of law. In paragraph 6 of the order, this Court has dealt with the matter in the following manner:
"6. A bare reading of the above quoted section 54 clearly states that if the Authority fails to commence implementation of the Town Development Scheme within a period of two years or completes its implementation within a period of five years from the date of notification of the final Scheme under section 50 it shall, on expiration of the said period of two years of five years, as the case may, lapse which is automatic. The submission of the Authority that since part of the Scheme has been implemented, it has not lapsed cannot be accepted because section 54 does not contemplate that if part of the Scheme has been implemented, the part which has not been implemented within the statutory period will not lapse. The Scheme should stand lapsed to the extent it 3 Writ Petition No :: 17914 / 2010 Virendra Yadav and another Vs. JDA and others has not been implemented. It is further clear that the Scheme which has lapsed relates primarily to private land which cannot also be acquired now because of the bar under section 56 of the Adhiniyam which provides that the Authority will not proceed to acquire by agreement the land after three years from the date of final publication of the Scheme. Since the Scheme has lapsed, no NOC is required and the petitioner is free to use the land in accordance with law. In the result, communication dated 6.9.2007 - Annexure P/7 and letter dated 25.7.2007 - Annexure P/9 are quashed."
In the present case, it is clear that the period of five years has already lapsed and within the period of five years the Scheme has not been implemented.
In view of the fact that the same Scheme has been held to have lapsed by operation of law by this Court in the writ petition as indicated hereinabove, this petition is also allowed.
Respondents are restrained from dis-possessing the petitioners from the land in question, in which they are still in possession and has not been taken over.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-