Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is contended that respondent No. 7 who was having his land adjoining the Mayurvan Colony had tried to encroach upon the land of the Board and the Board to prevent the same had constructed the boundary wall and developed the same as green belt and park to prevent the same from encroachment. It is contended that the permission sought by the Board for revising the layout plan was not granted, yet the Board in order to oblige 3 WP.5198/2011 (PIL) respondents No. 7 and 8 who happen to be real brothers, went on to carve out the commercial plots and auctioned the same by keeping low upset price. It is urged that the advertisement was also published in the newspaper Hindustan Express which does not have prominent circulation. It is contended that in furtherance to the auction notice, both the plots are leased out in favour of respondents for 67 lakhs; against the market price of over Rupees Seven Crores at the rate of Rs. 82,300/- per sq.mtr. Further contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the action of respondent Board in carving out commercial plots without getting it incorporated in the sanctioned layout plan is contrary to the provisions of Section 16, 23 and 23-A(1)(a) of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 (hereafter shall be referred as "Adhiniyam, 1973"), inasmuch as the land which was left out as vacant open utilized as park has been changed to commercial use.

(9) As regard to the factum of the case, it is urged that in the year 1996, layout plan was sanctioned by Town and Country Planning and the entire colony was developed thereover as per the plan. It is contended that later on additional land admeasuring 55845 sq.mtr. came in possession of Board; and as the additional land was facing AB road it was proposed to revise the plan to utilize the land for commercial purpose. For that application was filed on 05/01/1998 and in response to 7 9 WP.5198/2011 (PIL) point queries sought by the Town and Country Planning Department vide letter dated 22/01/1998, revised layout plan alongwith fees Rs. 4,000/- and revised map of layout was duly submitted in the office of Joint Director, Town and Country Planning on 09/03/1998. It is contended that said plan was required to be sanctioned within 60 days from the date of receipt of application; and as no decision was taken by the Town and Country Planning Department, the layout plan was deemed to have been sanctioned & approved. Accordingly, it is urged that, the process for development and construction of the colony was carried out. Whereafter, the Board has sold out about 1200 plots and houses to various persons as per the revised layout plan submitted in the year 1998. It is urged that the plots in question were part of the revised plan, the Board had sold it out as per the statute and policy through auction. Furthermore, while denying the allegation that the plots in question have been sold dearth cheap, it is urged that Section 50 of The Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Evam Adhosanrachna Vikas Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 the Board is empowered either to retain, lease, sale, exchange or otherwise dispose of the land, building or any property vested in it. It is urged that as per the procedure, a Committee was constituted for disposal of the plots in question at Bhopal and the decision 10 WP.5198/2011 (PIL) was taken by the Board in its meeting on 02/12/2010. It is urged that as the valuation of the property as assessed by the Sub-Engineer, as per the Collector's Guidelines was more than Rs. 30 lacs, the matter was sent for approval to the Board whereon decision was taken to fix the price above Collector's guidelines at Rs. 32 lacs and Rs. 28 lacs respectively. It is contended that the land being situated in a Gram Panchayat the rate of commercial plots as applicable for the year 2010-2011 at Rs. 5,500/- per sq.mtr was determined. As regard to allegation that the adequate publicity was not given; it is urged that, the newspaper Hindustan Express had an expected circulation of 69200 in the year 2010 (however it is not disclosed as to the circulation exclusively in Morena). As regard to the revised plan it is contended that even with the revision of plan, the Board is left with 46.39% of open land. By way of additional return it is urged on behalf of Board and its functionaries that the provision of Section 30 of Adhiniyam, 1973 is not attracted as the same apply to private developer whereas as per proviso to Section 27 of the Adhiniyam where no modification is proposed by the Director within 60 days on receipt of the plan of the proposed development, the plan will be presumed to have been approved. It is further contended that on 20/09/2001 again a letter was issued for slight change in layout plan on 11 WP.5198/2011 (PIL) account of receiving additional land whereas revised layout plan was again submitted on 25/03/2010 which was however turned down on 06/04/2010.

(10) It is further contended that because in the office of the Board the amended layout plan which was proposed and submitted in the office of Town and Country Planning in the year 1998 was misplaced, therefore an application for obtaining certified copy was filed by the Housing Board and Town and Country Planning has given the certified copy of the layout plan which is amended layout plan meaning thereby the Town and Country Planning has accepted the revised layout plan as proposed in the year 1998. In other words, the contention on behalf of respondent Board is that because the Town and Country Planning had provided a certified copy of proposed plan, it is to be treated as approved. (11) These contentions on behalf of Board, thus, establish the fact that the proposed amendment in the layout plan was not approved by the Town and Country Planning Department.

(28) In the case at hand also as the 31 WP.5198/2011 (PIL) information sought for on 22.01.1998 was not forthcoming it cannot be presumed that there was deemed sanction of proposed amendment. This aspect was duly understood by the authorities of the Board at the helm at relevant time i.e. in 1998-1999; therefore, no further action was taken by the Board in carving out the commercial plots and auction them de hors the development plan. (29) The said state of affairs continued till 2010 when revised layout plan was again submitted on 25/03/2010 which was turned down on 06/04/2010. However, very strange contentions are made by the Board in the return to justify their action, it is contended that: "because in the office of the Housing Board, the amended layout plan which was proposed and submitted in the office of the Town and Country Planning in the year 1998 was misplaced, therefore an application for obtaining the certified copy was filed by the Housing Board and the Town and Country Planning has given the certified copy of the layout plan which is amended layout plan, meaning thereby the Town and Country Planning has accepted the revised layout plan as proposed in the year 1998."