Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saptahik Malaw Aanchal Through Mrs. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2020
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 WP-18471-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18471-2020
(SAPTAHIK MALAW AANCHAL THROUGH MRS. JATSHRI JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AND OTHERS)
WP-18474-2020
(AAJ KI JANTA THROUGH MRS. SAROJ JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
WP-18547-2020
(AGNIBAAN THROUGH MR RAJESH CHELAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
WP-18700-2020
(DEVI AHILYA PUBLICATION PRIVATE LIMITED THR ITS DIRECTOR MR.
DEEPAK JOSHI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
2
Indore, Dated : 03-12-2020
Shri Brian D' Silva, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri S.S. Oberoi,
learned counsel for the petitioner.(W.P. No. 18471/2020)
Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned counsel for the petitioners (W.P. No.
18474/2020, W.P. No. 18547/2020 & W.P. No. 18700/2020)
Shri Shashwat Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.1 and
2/State.
Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Shrey R.
Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and 4/Indore Development
Authority.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
W.P. No. 18471/2020, W.P. No. 18474/2020, W.P. No. 18547/2020
and W.P. No. 18700/2020 arise out of common resolution no. 95 dated
19.11.2020 passed by the Indore Development Authority and the survey
report.
Looking to the similitude of controversy involved in all the these
petitions, it is considered apposite to dispose of the same by this common
order. For the sake of convenience, facts of W.P. No.18471/2020 have been
considered.
Petitioner, Mrs. Jayshri Jain W/o Mr. Rajesh Jain styling herself as a
Journalist and owner and Publisher of Saptahik Malaw Aanchal; a newspaper
a s reiterated in the petition is before this Court taking exception to the
resolution No. 95 dated 19.11.2020 passed by the Indore Development
2 WP-18471-2020
Authority(IDA for short) and survey report with further prayer seeking
protection against demolition or dispossession from the plot no. 22, Press
Complex, A.B. Road, Indore.
Facts in nutshell and relevant for disposal of petition are in narrow
compass; petitioner claims to have been allotted the aforesaid plot by the IDA in the year 1983 and also claims to have deposited the requisite amount as directed in the resolution no. 137 dated 27.05.2008. Thereafter, petitioner continued to be in possession of the plot in question. Petitioner has raised construction over the said plot and running a press for publication of newspaper.
Shri Brian D'silva, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid resolution is self-styled without notice and consideration of relevant facts. As such, the proposed actions of cancellation and dispossession are wholly unwarranted and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Per contra, Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Sr. counsel for the IDA contends as a matter of fact, preceding the impugned resolution, the allotment was cancelled long back. The IDA in fact has acted in accordance with the directives issued by the High Court in series of orders in different petitions from time to time starting from the order dated 09.12.2005 passed in M.P. No. 3518/1992(Vijay Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of M.P.) uptil October, 2020 in W.P. No. 11616/2020 pursuant whereto a committee was constituted to conduct survey. Petitioner was called to submit reply and upon due consideration, it was found that petitioner purportedly did not carry out any activity on land and, therefore, the very purpose for which the petitioner continued to be in possession was found to be non-existent. The committee so constituted therefore upon due inspection has made recommendations inter-alia, possibilities of compounding lapses, irregularities by the allottees, dispossession, recourse to fresh allotment etc.. As the recommendation of the committee is against the petitioner, therefore, the plot in question is liable 3 WP-18471-2020 for auction.
In rejoinder, Shri D' Silva submits that as a matter of fact, there was no cancellation of the allotment. The so called committee never issued notice at any point of time. None of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court ever authorized the IDA to take unilateral decision based upon one sided survey/inspection carried out by the committee to the prejudice of the petitioner. Upon payment of required premium, the IDA permitted change of use of land whereafter the press building has been erected and it is functioning.
Learned counsel refers to the documents and pictures annexed with the writ petition to bolster his submission.
Parties as such are at variance on facts. I am afraid, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked at this stage of controversy.
Moreso, it has transpired that petitioner has submitted reply before the IDA against the proposed action.
Shri Kaurav, learned Sr. counsel for the IDA fairly submits that as petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of the IDA, let IDA apply its mind to the entire controversy, as involved in this petition and take a reasoned decision in accordance with law.
Shri D' silva on instructions submits that he has no objection, in case petitioner's representation/reply is considered in right earnest and correct perspective. However, he further submits that petitioner may be protected against any coercive measure till decision on his reply/representation and in case, decision is rendered against the petitioner, for some period protection may be afforded, so that petitioner may take recourse before appropriate forum questioning the decision so taken.
Upon hearing counsel for the parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a happy landing at this pre-admission stage of writ petition.
Hence, all the petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
4 WP-18471-2020
(i) The respondent/IDA shall issue notice to the petitioners individually within a week fixing a date not later than one week therefrom, for appearance before the competent/authorized officer of the IDA in connection with the impugned resolution with liberty to the petitioners to file additional reply or documents, as the case may be.
(ii) Thereafter on the date fixed, petitioners shall appear without fail and may canvass the contentions available to them on facts and in law.
(iii) The competent/authorized officer of the IDA shall dwell upon the contentions raised in accordance with law and pass a self-contained reasoned order, regard being had to the concept of justice equity and good conscience.
(iv) Till the decision is taken by the competent/authorized officer, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
(v) It is further ordered that for a period of ten days from the date of passing of the order by the competent/authorized officer , no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, if the order so passed is against the interest of petitioners.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected writ petitions; W.P. No. 18474/2020, W.P. No. 18547/2020 and W.P. No. 18700/2020.
E-certified copy as per rules.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh SEHAR HASEEN Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2020.12.04 12:29:24 +05'30'