CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN versus M/S PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM. LID. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN 
v. 
MIS PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM. LID. AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 of 
1973)-Section l(j), 2(i), 2(o), 2(u), 2(v), 13. 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 20, 24, 
A 
B 
38, 49, 50 & 53-Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam 1984-Publication C 
of draft development plan of a planning area by Town and Country 
Development Authority calling for objections and suggestions-Notification 
by the Authority declaring its intention to prepare a town development 
scheme-State Government rejecting the draft development plan-Authority 
declining to grant permission to property owners for construction in view of 
the notification-High Court allowing the Writ Petitions of property owners D 
by striking down the notification-Correctness of-Held, words used in the 
Act should be given a literal meaning unless the context otherwise requires-
Development plan does not include draft development plan-Notification 
issued by the Authority without a sanctioned development plan is wholly 
illegal and hence struck down-On facts, the Authority does not have 
jurisdiction over the lands of the property owners. 
E 
A Notification was issued initially by State Government under section 
13(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 
of 1973) (for short "the Act") laying down the limits of City Planning Area 
constituting certain villages. Later, another notification wa issued amending F 
the Planning Area by adding more villages including the two villages in 
question in which respondents' lands are situated, and deleting some villages. 
Thereafter, the appellant-Authority published a draft development plan of the 
Planning Area under Section 18 of the Act and called for any objections and 
suggestions in respect thereof. In anticipation of the sanction of the draft 
development plan by he State Government, the appellant published a declaration G 
of intention for preparing a town planning scheme in the Planning Area in 
Official Gazette under section 50(2) of the Act. The draft development plan 
came to be ultimately not sanctioned by the State Government. 
The applications made by the respondents for permission for 
799 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
...... 
.. 
A construction were rejected by the appellant on the ground of the declaration 
made under section 50(2) of the Act. Writ Petitions preferred by the 
respondents challenging the rejection of their applications seeking 
permissions were allowed by the High Court by striking down the declaration 
by holding that the draft town development scheme cannot be published by the 
B 
appellant without a development plan coming into force under the Act; that 
such a draft scheme cannot by itself restrict the right of a person to use his 
property in the manner he likes; and that the appellant-Authority does not 
have jurisdiction over the two villages in question. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that under the Act, a 
..( 
c development plan includes a draft development plan; that the existence of a 
draft development plan would authorize it to declare its intention to prepare a 
town development scheme at any time under section 50 of the Act; that the 
preparation of the draft scheme under section 50 of the Act is not subject to 
the sanction of final development plan and that section 50 must be read in 
contrast with section 20 of the Act; that section 53 would operate as soon a 
D declaration is made under section 50 or otherwise section 53 of the Act would 
become otiose; that the draft town development scheme covers the villages in 
question; that private interest must be waived to public interest; and that the 
... 
extention of the planning area by subsequent notification would ipso factor 
enlarge the jurisdiction of the appellant in applying the purported town 
..._ 
E 
development scheme. 
The respondents contended that their lands are situated outside the 
planning area over which the appellant has jurisdiction; that the extention of 
the planning area by a subsequent notification would not ipso factor enlarge 
the jurisdiction of the appellant; that the definition of the 'town development 
F scheme' under section 2(u) of the Act presupposes an existence of a sanctioned 
development plan and hence the draft town development scheme is illegal; that 
-
public interest has sufficiently been safeguarded under the Act; and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.