MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER versus VIJAY BODANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1207 · Decided: 04-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1207
MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND ANOTHER
v.
VIJAY BODANA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1998 of 2020)
MARCH 04, 2020
[SHARAD A. BOBDE, CJI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development
Board Act 1972 – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973 – Modification of the layout plan – The appellant-
board had developed a colony as per the layout plan sactioned by
the T&CP in 1981 – Thereafter, the appellant sought for a
modification of the layout plan approved by the Town and Country
Planning (T&CP) and which was permissible under the provisions
of the Adhiniyam – The Deputy Director, T&CP approved the
modified layout plan vide order dated 24.09.2008 – The first and
second respondents filed writ petition to quash and set aside the
order approving the change in the layout plan – The High Court
allowed the writ petition and applying the principle of promissory
estoppel held that the appellant-board must develop the land
according to the original plan shown to the allottees at the time of
purchase – On appeal, held: The High Court misconstrued and
misdirected itself by relying upon the principle of promissory estoppel
to hold that once the layout plan is prepared the same cannot be
modified or changed – The change or modification is permitted
under the Adhiniyam, provided the modification/ change is in
accordance with law i.e. as per the procedure, and satisfies the
development norms and conditions of the development plans, zonal
plans and town planning schemes – The modification cannot be
struck down when the law permits such change which is in terms of
the statute and the plans that have the force of law – As long as the
layout plans conform to the development control norms, the Court
would not substitute its own opinion as to what principle or policy
would best serve greater Public or private interest – Further, it is
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1207
1207
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
not the case of the first and second respondents that the procedure,
parameters and norms prescribed by the Adhiniyam was not followed
or the development plan and zonal plan were violated – Therefore,
the modification of the layout plan upheld.
Delay/ Laches – The writ petition challenging the orders
approving the modification of layout plan was filed nearly seven
years after the approval for modification was granted– Meanwhile,
42 out of 52 plots were sold to third parties for consideration –
Held: In the instant case, many of bonafide owner-purchasers had
completed construction and some houses were in advanced stages
of construction – Considerable delay and laches of nearly seven
years in approaching the Court had resulted in a change in position
as third-party rights were created – In view of delay and laches, the
High Court should not have entertained the writ petition as 42 plot
owners who had paid money would suffer adverse consequences
for no fault of theirs – Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure
Development Board Act, 1972 – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha
Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. It is lucid that the High Court has misconstrued
and misdirected itself by relying upon the principle of promissory
estoppel to hold that once the layout plan is prepared the same
cannot be modified or changed. Change or modification is
permitted under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
Adhiniyam, 1973, provided the modification/change is in
accordance with law i.e., as per the procedure, and satisfies the
development norms and conditions of the development plans,
zonal plans and town planning schemes. The modification cannot
be struck down when the law permits such change which is in
terms of the statute and the plans that have the force of law. As
long as the layout plans conform to the development control
norms, the court would not substitute its own opinion as to what
principle or policy would best serve greater public or private
interest. It is not the case of the first and second respondents
that the procedure prescribed by the Adhiniyam was not followed
or the parameters and norms prescribed by the Adhiniyam, the
development plan or the zonal plan have been violated. In this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1209
background, this Court fails to understand how the modification
in the layout plan which is in accordance with the Adhiniyam could
have been struck down. [Para 6][1215-E-H; 1216-A]
2

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