RAIUPR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 781 · Decided: 30-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAIUPRDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
A 
' 
,,ill 
v. 
ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMIT! AND ORS. 
--
MARCH 30, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973-Sections 29, 30, 30(5) 
(Proviso)-lntention to prepare development scheme published in Gazette-
Applications made for permission to develop land for grant ~o objection 
certificate-Applicant did not provide information sought in a series of c 
communications-Permission to develop land not granted-Application for 
grant of no objection certificate rejected as draft scheme had already been 
published-High Cou11 allowed writ petition quashing draft scheme, granting 
deemed permission as no decision had been communicated within 60 days-
On appeal held, no question of deemed permission as the required information 
D 
had not been provided by applicant-By operation of proviso the period of 60 
days had not expired as information sought was not received-Grant of no 
objection certificate was rejected as draft scheme had been published and no 
sanction could be made in contradiction of it-No illegality in the order 
passed by the Authority-However an appeal could have been filed under 
Section 31 or 32 of the Act, which was not done. 
E 
Sections 50(1), (2), (3)-Publications recording similar intentions were 
C' 
made on two different dates-No ill consequential effect due to two publica-
tions-Second publication not invalid if .first publication allowed to Lapse-
Second publication would be starting point for computation of period of two 
F 
years under Section 50(3). 
M.P. Town and Count1y Development Rules, I 975-Rule 18(2 )-limit a-
tion of two years starts.from publication under Section 50(2) in Form XIII and 
ends with publication of draft scheme under Section 50(3) in Form XN-
Further publication in local newspaper after publication in gazette is required 
G 
for giving due publicity and need not be done simultaneously-Period of 30 
days for filing objections should be counted from publication in newspaper. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Reydon' s principle-Wiren two interpretations 
possible, Interpretation subservient to intent of legislature to be accepted-Ob-
ject of Act is to provide planned development and an interpretation uphol<ling 
H 
781 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
this scheme must be followed-M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973. 
Certain section of the M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 
1973 read with the M.P. Town and Country Development 'Rules, 1975 were 
·sought to be interpreted in this appeal. Section 29 of the Act refers to 
development of land by any person other than a local body or any authority 
B 
constituted under the Act. Section 30 empowers the Director to grant or 
refuse permission while Section 30(5) grants a deemed permission if the 
sarhe is not conveyed within 60 days of the application. An intention to 
prepare a development scheme has to be published under Section 50(1) 
which has to be published within 30 days under Section 50 (2) and then the 
C 
draft scheme is to be published within 2 years under Section 50(3) in the 
form and manner prescribed under Rule 18. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appellant Authority published its intention to prepare a develop-
ment scheme under Section 50(2) on two different dates. Respondent No. l 
applied under Section 29 for permission to develop land followed by an-
other application for grant of a no objection certificate. Certain informa-
tion was sought from the applicant in a series of communications, which 
was not provided. Respondent was informed by an order that the draft 
scheme had already been published, therefore a no objection certificate 
could not be granted. A writ petition was filed before the High Court 
contending that a deemed permission had been granted as no decision was 
communicated within 60 days; that the draft scheme was not published 
within two years of publication under Section 50(2) and that the require-
ment of simultaneous publication in the gazette and local newspapers 
under Rule 18(2) was not completed. High Court allowed the writ petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
.Respondents contended before this Court that a deemed permission· 
had already been granted; that publication under Section 50(3) had been 
made after the limitation of two years expired, that the form and manner 
of publication prescribed under Rule 18(2) was not followed; and that 
second application for grant of no objection certificate could not have 
be

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