LexINDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILLS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILLS AND ORS. APRIL 12, 2005 [RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Urban Development : Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960-Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973-Section 50-Development Scheme-Proposal to frame-Under the Act-Objections against the Scheme filed before Improvement Trust-Constitution of Development Authority and dissolution of the Trust on coming into force of the Adhiniyam-Fresh objections D invited by Authority-Objections submitted-After hearing the objectors Scheme approved-Approval also by Revisional Authority-Scheme challenged by objectors-Set aside by High Court-On appeal, held: Scheme not illegal or unlawful as the same was approved by the Development Authority after following the procedure as provided under the Adhiniyam and observing E principles of natural justice. A resolution was passed by Improvement Trust for framing Town Development Scheme under Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960. Notification and individual notices were issued inviting objections to the Scheme. Objections were filed by the respondents. In the p meantime Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 came into force under which Development Authority was established and Improvement Trust was dissolved. Tht: Development Authority issued notice to the objector with regard to the objections against the Scheme. Objectors filed objections afresh with the Authority. The Authority after hearing the objectors and considering the objections, approved the Scheme G in accordance with Section 50 of the Adhiniyam. Thereafter notifications u/ss. 4 and 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were issued as also a notice u/s. 9 to the respondents asking them to handpver possession of the property. Respondents filed Writ Petitions challenging the notifications. Single Judge of High Court disposed of the petitions by permitting the H 4W I --· IN DORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SH RI KRISHNA OIL MILLS 481 respondent-objectors to approach revisional authority u/s.51 of the A Adhiniyam. Appellant-Authority filed Writ appeal, which was di~missed by Division Bench of High Court, upholding the order of Single Judge. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision filed by the respondents observing that the Scheme had been notified by the Authority as per rules and following the requisite procedure. Challenging the order of Development Authority and the Revisional Authority, respondents filed Writ Petition. High Court relying on Indore Development Authority v. Madan Lal and Ors., [19901 2 SCC 334, allowed the petition and also other petitions. B In appeal to this Court, appellant-Authority contended that since the C Authority had finalized the scheme after taking all the actions required under the Adhiniyam, such Scheme could not be held illegal, unlawful or against provisions of Adhiniyam; and that the case of Madan Lal was not applicable to the present case. Respondent-objectors contended that the Authority should have D started the proceeding under the Adhiniyam afresh, since there was no 'draft Scheme' as envisaged by the Trust Act, the proceedings could not have continued under the Adhiniyam by the Authority. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1. In the present case, procedure under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was followed by the Authorities. Notices were issued, objections were submitted and hearing E was afforded to the affected persons and thereafter the decision was taken. Since in this case, the said procedure was followed, the provisions of the Adhiniyam had been complied with; so also the principles of nature justice F were observed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the action taken by the appellants was illegal or unlawful. As the Revisional Authority did not think it fit to interfere with the decision of the Development Authority, it approved the action of the Authority and dismissed the revision. Consequently, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land G Acquisition Act were issued and published in accordance with law. Those actions also cannot be termed illegal. The Scheme was not illegal or unlawful. (494-H; 495-A-D) Indore Development Authority v. Madan Lal and Ors., (1990} 2 SCC 334, distinguished. H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2547 of2005. B F
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.