LexBINABAI BHATE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 31 BINABAI BHATE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4920 of 2011) JULY 04, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] A B Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - ss. 17, 18, 19 and 23(A) - Publication of draft C development plan which included some portion of appellant's land - Appellant filed objections - Resolution passed by the Committee in favour of the appellant - However, State Government included certain lands belonging to the appellant in the modified development plan - Review petition filed by D the appellant uls. 23(A) before the State Government rejected - Writ petition as also writ appeal dismissed - On appeal, held: Resolutions passed by. the Committee cannot be said to be absolute, final and binding - State Government possesses the final authority in the matter of giving approval to the E development plan - On facts, development plan was approved by the State Government without any modification and therefore, there was no question of inviting any further suggestions or giving any hearing to the appellant - There was no violation of the principles of natural justice - State F Government issued a final plan and also invited objections from the persons who are likely to be affected by inclusion of their land to which the appellant did not submit any objection, therefore, the question of giving a hearing to the appellant at that stage ·did not arise - High Court was justified in holding G that there could be no review to the order passed since no power of review is provided for under the provisions of the Act - Also, ss. 23 and 23A providing for review and modifications of the development plan or adjoining plan not applicable in the instant case since State Government has not made any 31 H 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R. A modification in the development plan - Thus, order passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Some portion of appellant's land was included in the draft development plan published under the Madhya B Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, for the purpose of holding a Mela. The appellant submitted objections. The Committee decided that the appellant's land was not required and passed a resolution in favour of the appellant. However, by a Notification, the appellant C came to know that the State Government had included certain lands belonging to the appellant in the modified development plan. The appellant filed a review petition under Section 23(A) of the Act before the State Government and the same was rejected stating that there 0 is no provision for review of the order in the Act. The appellant then filed a writ petition and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, writ appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 give a broad scheme laying down the procedure as to how a F development plan is to be approved by the State Government as also the procedure as to when It becomes final and operational. The said scheme of the provisions clearly states that a recommendation of the Committee is only recommendatory and advisory in nature and· such recommendations of the Committee are required to be G considered by the State Government, but the absolute and final power is rested on the State Government to approve or reject the draft development plan or to approve the same with some modifications as it may deem appropriate. The resolutions passed by the H Committee cannot be said to be absolute, final and BINABAI BHATE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 33 AND ORS. binding and the State Government possesses the final A authority in the matter of giving approval to the development plan. [Paras 18 and 19] [39-C-G] 1.2 In the instant case, the development plan as prepared under Section 14 was approved by the State 8 Government without any modification and therefore there was no question of inviting any further suggestions as no modification was suggested to the said development plan. There was no question of giving any hearing to the appellant and therefore, the issue raised with regard to C alleged violation of the principles of natural justice is without any merit. In any case, the State Government approved the draft plan without any modification
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.