Indore Treasue Town Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs State Of Madhya pradesh & Ors

,,,,,,,,,

The petitioners before this Court have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure-P/24) passed by the,,,,,,,,,

Principal Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, Housing & Environment Department in respect of development plan 2021.",,,,,,,,,

The petitioners’ contention is that the petitioners are the companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the owner of land admeasuring",,,,,,,,,

about 130 acres in Bijalpur area, which the petitioner companies have purchased from time to time mostly in the year 2006-08.",,,,,,,,,

The petitioners/companies have further stated that the petitioners intended to develop a residential township with various facilities like sport complex,",,,,,,,,,

club house, hospital, school, shopping center etc., therefore, purchased the land measuring more than 130 acres in village-Bijalpur and village-",,,,,,,,,

Pipiliyarao.,,,,,,,,,

It has further been stated that out of total land, 15.864 hectares of land equaling to 39.200 acres was earlier demarcated as ‘Residential’ in the",,,,,,,,,

Indore Draft Development Plan, 2021 and it was unilaterally changed to ‘Public and Semi Public’ in the Indore Development Plan, 2021",,,,,,,,,

published by the State Government. The dispute is only in respect of the aforesaid piece of the land.,,,,,,,,,

The facts further reveal that the Draft Development Plan was published under Section 18 of the Adhiniyam on 13.07.2006 showing the proposed use,,,,,,,,,

of subject land and the same is on record as Annexure-P/3. The land use was shown as residential and the petitioners in order to use the land for the,,,,,,,,,

residential purposes, as reflected in the Draft Residential Land with an intention of development of integrated residential township, collectively bought",,,,,,,,,

the land and they were able to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The total consideration paid by the company was approximately Rupees 36,,,,,,,,,

crores.,,,,,,,,,

The undisputed facts reveal that the Draft Development Plan was published under Section 18 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh,,,,,,,,,

Adhiniyam, 1973, on 13.07.2006 and under Section 18 (2) of the Adhiniyam, a committee was constituted under Section 17 (2) to consider the",,,,,,,,,

objections, if any, filed in the matter. As the land use was shown as ‘Residential’, there was no occasion on part of the petitioners/companies to",,,,,,,,,

file any objection and the companies were satisfied with land use reflected in the development plan.,,,,,,,,,

It has further been stated that to the petitioners’ surprise, final development plan was sanctioned by the State Government on 01.01.2008 under",,,,,,,,,

Section 19 (1) of the Adhiniyam and the land use in respect of 15.864 hectares (39.20 acres) was shown as ‘Public and Semi Public’. The,,,,,,,,,

Indore Development Plan, 2021 is on record (Annexure-P/4). The petitioners’ contention is that the respondents have given a complete go by to",,,,,,,,,

statutory provisions as contained under Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Adhiniyam while approving the final development plan and no opportunity of any,,,,,,,,,

kind was given to the petitioners while publishing the final plan.,,,,,,,,,

It has further been stated that under the Draft Development Plan of the year 2006, the land use was ‘Resdential’, however, by way of abundant",,,,,,,,,

caution, in terms of Section 23 (A)Â of the Adhiniyam, the petitioners have also filed an application seeking modification of the land use from",,,,,,,,,

Agricultural to Residential, as under the 1991 Development Plan, the land use was agricultural.",,,,,,,,,

It has also been stated that the Government of Madhya Pradesh has formed a Trade and Investment facilitation Corporation Limited (hereinafter,,,,,,,,,

referred as ‘TRIFAC’), which is single window of Secretariat for investment facilitation for granting in-principle approvals to the investment",,,,,,,,,

proposals having outlay of Rs.25 crores and above in the sectors other than industry through Project Clearance and Implementation constituted on,,,,,,,,,

18.04.2006 and the petitioners/company on 29.08.2007, submitted an investment plan of Rupees 2,000 crores of Residential Township, Multiplex, IT",,,,,,,,,

Park etc etc.,,,,,,,,,

The proposal given by the petitioner was in-principle approved by the TRIFAC and a letter was also issued by the TRIFAC on 12.11.2007. The,,,,,,,,,

petitioners have further stated that a large number of writ petitions were preferred by identically placed persons, meaning thereby, in those cases,",,,,,,,,,

where the land use was shown to be ‘Residential’ under the Draft Development Plan and it was changed while publishing a final development,,,,,,,,,

plan and this Court has passed an order in W.P. No.1153/2007 on 17.06.2008 directing the respondents to hear all the objections and to pass a,,,,,,,,,

reasoned order within three months.,,,,,,,,,

The petitioners have also submitted their objections on 03.07.2008 to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department and also prayed",,,,,,,,,

for personal hearing. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Government being aggrieved by the order passed by learned,,,,,,,,,

Single Judge, preferred an appeal i.e. W.A. No.180/2009 and the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal preferred by the State",,,,,,,,,

Government on 18.02.2010.,,,,,,,,,

Not only this, in the writ appeal, the Division has directed the respondents to constitute a committee under Section 17 (A) of the Adhiniyam and to",,,,,,,,,

decide the objections raised by the land owners. The order was passed on 18.02.2010 and the same was subjected to judicial scrutiny before the,,,,,,,,,

Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP on 20.08.2010 i.e. SLP No.22768/2010. After dismissal of the,,,,,,,,,

SLP, a committee was constituted and the objections were forwarded to the committee.",,,,,,,,,

The respondents sought various information about the ownership of the land from the petitioners and a date was fixed i.e. 12.10.2010. The petitioners,,,,,,,,,

appeared on 12.10.2010 and submitted a written objection, however, the time frame work, as fixed by the Court came to an end. As nothing was done,",,,,,,,,,

another writ petition was preferred i.e. W.P. No.7801/2011 and this Court by an order dated 26.09.2011 directed the respondents to pass an order as,,,,,,,,,

expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, a contempt petition was preferred i.e. Conc No.856/2011 and the objections of the petitioner were rejected",,,,,,,,,

without assigning any reasons by passing an order on 27.08.2012. The order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the respondents was again subjected to,,,,,,,,,

judicial scrutiny by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.7577/2012 and this Court on 29.09.2012 has set aside the order passed by the respondents,,,,,,,,,

directing them to pass a speaking order afresh.,,,,,,,,,

After the order was passed on 27.08.2012, the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 23 (A) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha",,,,,,,,,

Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam and prayed alternatively to change the land use as ‘Residential’. However, in respect of the objections, which were",,,,,,,,,

filed before the committee constituted under Section 17 (A) of the Adhiniyam, the respondents have finally passed an order on 26.06.2013 rejecting",,,,,,,,,

the claim of the petitioner.,,,,,,,,,

Shri Sumit Nema, learned senior counsel along with Shri Baheti has vehemently argued before this Court that in the present case, first committee was",,,,,,,,,

constituted as per the directions of this Court keeping in view Section 17 (A) (1) of the Adhiniyam and a second committee was constituted keeping in,,,,,,,,,

view Section 23 (A) of the Adhiniyam, which provides for a change of land use. His contention is that the committee so constituted has held that the",,,,,,,,,

land use be changed, however, the learned Deputy Secretary, who was dealing with the file has rejected the claim of the petitioner.",,,,,,,,,

A prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction to declare the land use as ‘Residential’ in light of two judgments of,,,,,,,,,

this Court delivered in the case of Ghanshyamdas Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust v/s State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (W.P. No.2857/2016),,,,,,,,,

decided on 19.04.2017 and in the case of Nilesh Jain & Others v/s State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No.4896/2013) decided on 13.04.2018.,,,,,,,,,

On the other hand, Shri Aditya Garg, learned Government Advocate has filed the reply and has argued the matter and his contention is that there is",,,,,,,,,

delay in filing the present writ petition and in the land use, as reflected from the Development Plan, 2021, is ‘Public and Semi Public’. It has",,,,,,,,,

been stated that after the judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court, a committee was constituted under Section 17 (1)(A)Â of the",,,,,,,,,

Adhiniyam and the committee, after hearing the petitioners, has rejected the claim of the petitioners. In the reply, it has also been stated that the",,,,,,,,,

petitioners were given opportunity of hearing and the orders have been passed after taking into account all the grounds raised by the petitioners, and",,,,,,,,,

therefore, the question of interference by this Court doesn’t arise. He has also argued that the land use cannot be changed. It has attained finality",,,,,,,,,

and no case for interference is made out in the matter on the basis of Section 23 (A) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam.,,,,,,,,,

It has also been stated that the order passed by the TRIFAC relied upon by the petitioners is of no use. The order was passed based upon the,,,,,,,,,

presentation given by the petitioners for investment of Rupees 2,000 crores subject to a condition that the petitioners have requested for change of",,,,,,,,,

land use under Section 23 (A) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the",,,,,,,,,

petitioners.,,,,,,,,,

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at admission stage itself.,,,,,,,,,

In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal that a draft master-plan was notified on 13.07.2006 and the entire",,,,,,,,,

land i.e. 130 acres were shown to be a ‘Residential’. As the land was shown to be ‘Residentialâ€, there was no occasion for the petitioners",,,,,,,,,

to submit any objection, however, to the utter surprise of the petitioners on 01.01.2008 under Section 19 (1) of the Adhiniyam, Final Development Plan",,,,,,,,,

was published and out of 130 acres, 39.20 acres was shown to ‘Public and Semi Public’.",,,,,,,,,

The relevant statutory provisions which are necessary for adjudicating the present controversy, as contained under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 23 (A) the",,,,,,,,,

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adniniyam read as under:-,,,,,,,,,

Contents of development plan. - A development plan shall take into account any draft fiveyear and Annual Development plan of the district,,,,,,,,,

prepared under the Madhya Pradesh Zila Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam, 1995 (No. 19 of 1995) in which the planning area is situated and shall.",,,,,,,,,

(a) indicate broadly the land use proposed in theplanning area;,,,,,,,,,

(b) [allocate broadly areas or zones of land, keeping inview the regulations for natural hazard prone areas, for-] (i) residential, industrial, commercial or",,,,,,,,,

agricultural, purpose;",,,,,,,,,

(ii) open spaces, parks and gardens, green-belts,zoological gardens and playgrounds;",,,,,,,,,

(iii) public institutions and offices;,,,,,,,,,

(iv) such special purposes as the Director may deem fit;(c) lay down the pattern of National and State Highways connecting the planning area with,,,,,,,,,

the rest of the region, ring roads, arterial roads and the major roads within the planning area;",,,,,,,,,

(d) provide for the location of air-ports, railway stations,but terminus and indicate the proposed extension and development of railways and canals;",,,,,,,,,

(e) make proposals for general landscaping and preservation of natural areas;,,,,,,,,,

(f) project the requirement of the planning area of suchamenities and utilities as water, drainage, electricity and suggest their fulfilment;",,,,,,,,,

(g) propose broad based regulations for zoning, by wayof guide lines, within each zone or sector of the location, height, size of buildings and structures,",,,,,,,,,

open spaces, court yards and the use to which such buildings and structures and land may be put;",,,,,,,,,

(h) lay down the broad-based traffic circulation patternsin a city;,,,,,,,,,

(i) suggest architectural control features; elevation andfrontages of buildings and structures;,,,,,,,,,

(j) indicate measures for flood control, prevention of airand water pollution, disposal of garbage and general environmental control.",,,,,,,,,

Publication of draft development plan. - (1) [The Director shall publish the draft development plan prepared under Section 14 in such manner as,,,,,,,,,

may be prescribed together with a notice of the preparation of the draft development plan and the place or the places where the copies may be,,,,,,,,,

inspected, inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto, within thirty days from the date of communication of",,,,,,,,,

such notice, such notice shall specify in regard to the draft development plan, the following particulars, namely,-]",,,,,,,,,

(i) the existing land use maps;,,,,,,,,,

[(i-a) the natural hazard prone areas with the description of natural hazards;,,,,,,,,,

(ii) a narrative report, supported by maps and charts,explaining the provisions of the draft development plan; (iii) the phasing of implementation of the",,,,,,,,,

draft development plan as suggested by the Director; (iv) the provisions for enforcing the draft development plan and stating the manner in which,,,,,,,,,

permission for development may be obtained;,,,,,,,,,

(v) approximate cost of land acquisition for public purposes and the cost of works involved in the implementation of the plan.,,,,,,,,,

(2) The committee constituted under sub-section (1) ofSection 17-A shall not later than ninety days after the publication of the notice under sub-,,,,,,,,,

section (1), consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (1) and shall,",,,,,,,,,

after giving reasonable opportunity to all persons affected thereby of being heard, suggest such modifications in the draft development plan as it may",,,,,,,,,

consider necessary, and submit, not later than six months after the publication of the draft development plan, the plan as so modified, to the Director",,,,,,,,,

together with all connected documents plans, maps and charts.",,,,,,,,,

(3) The Director shall, within 30 days of the receipt of theplan and other documents from the committee submit all the documents and plans so",,,,,,,,,

received alongwith his comments, to the State Government.]",,,,,,,,,

Sanction of development plans. - (1) As soon as may be after the submission of the development plan under Section 18 the State Government may,,,,,,,,,

either approve the development plan or may approve it with such modifications as it may consider necessary or may return it to the Director to modify,,,,,,,,,

the same or to prepare a. fresh plan in accordance with such directions as the State Government may deem appropriate.,,,,,,,,,

(2) Where the State Government approves thedevelopment plan with modifications, the State Government shall, by a notice published in the Gazette,",,,,,,,,,

invite objections and suggestions in respect of such modifications within a period of not less than thirty days from the date of publication of the notice,,,,,,,,,

in the Gazette.,,,,,,,,,

(3) After considering objections and suggestions and aftergiving a hearing to the persons desirous of being heard, the State Government may confirm",,,,,,,,,

the modification in the development plan.,,,,,,,,,

[(4) The State Government shall publish a public notice in the Gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed of the approval of the,,,,,,,,,

development plan approved under the foregoing provisions and the place or places where the copies of the approved development plan may be,,,,,,,,,

inspected.,,,,,,,,,

(5) The development plan shall come into operation from the date of publication of the said notice in the Gazette under sub- section (4) and as from,,,,,,,,,

such date shall be binding on all Development Authorities constituted under this Act and all local authorities functioning with the planning area.,,,,,,,,,

23A. Modification of Development Plan or Zoning Plan by State Government in certain circumstances. - [(1) (a) The State Government may, on its",,,,,,,,,

own motion or on the request of a Town and Country Development Authority, make modification in the development plan or the zoning plan for any",,,,,,,,,

proposed project of the Government of India or the State Government and its enterprises or for any proposed project related to development of the,,,,,,,,,

State or for implementing a scheme of a Town and Country Development Authority and the modification so made in the development plan or zoning,,,,,,,,,

plan shall be an integral part of the revised development plan or zoning plan.,,,,,,,,,

(b) The State Government may, on an application from any person or an association of persons for modification of development plan or zoning plan for",,,,,,,,,

the purpose of undertaking an activity or scheme which is considered by the State Government or the Director, on the advice of the Committee",,,,,,,,,

constituted by the State Government for this purpose, to be beneficial to the society, make such modification in the development plan or zoning plan as",,,,,,,,,

may he deemed necessary in the circumstances of the case and the modification so made in the development plan or zoning plan shall be an integral,,,,,,,,,

part of the revised development plan or zoning plan.],,,,,,,,,

(2) The State Government shall publish the draft ofmodified plan together with a notice of the preparation of the draft modified plan and the place or,,,,,,,,,

places where the copies may he inspected, continuously for two days in such two daily newspapers which arc in the approved list of Government for",,,,,,,,,

advertisement purpose having circulation in the area to which if relates and a copy thereof shall be affixed in a conspicuous place in the office of the,,,,,,,,,

Collector, inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto within fifteen days from the date of publication of such",,,,,,,,,

notice.,,,,,,,,,

After considering all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice and shall, after giving reasonable",,,,,,,,,

opportunity to all persons affected thereby or being heard, the State Government shall confirm the modified plan.",,,,,,,,,

(3) The provisions of Sections 18, 19 and 22 shall notapply for modification made by the State Government.â€​",,,,,,,,,

The dispute in the present case is only in respect of 39 acres of land, which is part and parcel of the total 130 acres of land. Undisputedly, after",,,,,,,,,

various writ petitions filed before this Court, the respondents were under an obligation to constitute a committee under Section 17 (A) of the",,,,,,,,,

Adhiniyam and a committee was constituted. The committee has observed that in Bijalpur, over 130 acres land, a township is being established on",,,,,,,,,

account of assistance of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and out of the 130 acres, 39 acres of land is reserve for public use, and therefore, the",,,,,,,,,

development of the township is not possible.,,,,,,,,,

It is true that the committee has not changed the land use, however, the facts remains that the petitioners, keeping in view Section 23-A of the",,,,,,,,,

Adhiniyam, which permits for change of land use, have submitted an application for change of land use. The application was submitted on 01.02.2013",,,,,,,,,

and a committee was constituted under the provisions of 23 d (1) ([k). The committee was having as many as 17 members. Details of constitution of,,,,,,,,,

the High Power Committee are at page 110 (Annexure-P/16). The committee in its meeting held on 07.05.2013 has has held as under:-,,,,,,,,,

“Ekiz- uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k vf/kfu;e ---------------------------------------23 d ¼1½ [k ds varxZr mikarj.k ds vkosnuksa ds fujkdj.k djus gsrq,,,,,,,,,

xfBr lfefr dh nloha cSBd fnukad 07-05-2013 dks e-iz- fodkl izkf/kdj.k la?k ds lHkkd{k esa lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k Hkksiky dh v/;{krk esa,,,,,,,,,

vk;ksftr dh x;h%&,,,,,,,,,

cSBd esa mifLFkr vf/kdkjhx.k@lnL;,,,,,,,,,

1- Jh xqy’ku ckejk] lapkyd] uxj rFkk xake fuos’k] Hkksiky ¼v/;{k lfefr½,,,,,,,,,

2- la;qDr lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k] lapkyukys;] ¼Vh-lh½ HkksikyA,,,,,,,,,

3- la;qDr lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k] ftyk dk;kZy;] tcyiqj ,oalkxjA",,,,,,,,,

4- lgk;d lapkyd] uxj rFkk xake fuos’k] ftyk dk;kZy;] NrjiqjA5- dk;Zikyu ;a=h ¼izfrfuf/k eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh½ tcyiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] tcyiqjA,,,,,,,,,

6- dk;Zikyu ;a=h ¼vk;qDr ds izfrfuf/k½ uxj fuxe] tcyiqjA,,,,,,,,,

7- mi;a=h] ¼la;qDr lapkyd ds izfrfuf/k½ uxj fuxe] rFkk xzke fuos’k ftykdk;kZy;] lkxjA,,,,,,,,,

8- Jh Mh- ds- ’kekZ] lfefr dh cSBd gsrq p;fur uxj fuos’kdA,,,,,,,,,

9- Jh ch-,u- f=ikBh] izkstsDV Mk;jsDVj] e-iz- fodkl izkf/kdj.k la?k] Hkksiky] lnL; lfpo lfefrA cSBd esa mifLFkr vf/kdkjhx.k@lnL;",,,,,,,,,

1- vk;qDr] uxj fuxe] bankSjA,,,,,,,,,

2- eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r] lkxjA,,,,,,,,,

3- la;qDr lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k ftyk dk;kZy;] bankSjA,,,,,,,,,

4- eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] bankSjA 5- eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] [ktqjkgks fodkl izkf/kdj.k] [ktqjkgksA ftyk NrjiqjA,,,,,,,,,

 6- eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh] uxj ikfydk] [ktqjkgks ftyk NrjiqjA,,,,,,,,,

lfefr ds le{k fuEu pkj izdj.k j[ks x;s%&,,,,,,,,,

cSBd esa izR;sd izdj.k esa vkosnd ls izkIr nLrkost ftyk dk;kZy; dk vfHker ,oa e-iz-fodkl izkf/kdj.k la?k dk rF;kRed izfrosnu j[kk x;kA izdj.k Øekad&1",,,,,,,,,

1-1 fo""k;%& Jh lat; O;kl bankSj Vsªtj Vkmu izk-fy- }kjk xzke chtyiqj] rglhy o ftyk bankSj [kljk Øekad 878@1] 878@2] 919@1@2]] 919@2]",,,,,,,,,

921@1] 921@1 III 888] 877@2] 877@1] 921@1] 887@1@1] 887@2] 920 dqy jdck 10-513 gsDV- dk orZeku Hkw&mi;ksx **lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ",,,,,,,,,

lkoZtfud ls vkoklh;** rFkk xzke chtyiqj ,oa fiIy;kjko [kljk Øekad 921@3@1] 921@3@2] 921@3@3] 921@3@4] 921@3@5] 922@2]",,,,,,,,,

213@1] 213@2 dqy jdck 3-809 gsDVs;j dk Hkw&mi;ksx **lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ lkoZtfud ls O;olkf;d** mikUrj.k ckcr~A",,,,,,,,,

1-2 izdj.k dk laf{kIr fooj.k %& iz’uk/khu Lfky bankSj uxj fuxe lhek ds vanj xzke chtyiqj ,oa fiiY;kjko esa fLFkr gSA ;g bankSj fodkl ;kstuk esa",,,,,,,,,

izLrkfor 45 ehVj pkSM+s ,e-vkj-&3 ekxZ ds lehi gS rFkk bl hkwfe ds if’pe fn’kk esa vkosnd dh vU; Hkwfe ij vkoklh; vfHkU;kl Lohd`r gSA",,,,,,,,,

1-3 vkosnd ds vkosnu@izLrqrhdj.k esa mBk, x, eq[; eqn~ns %& vkosnd }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd bankSj fodkl ;kstuk izk:i esa ;g Hkwfe vkoklh; Fkh",,,,,,,,,

ijUrq yxw dh xbZ bankSj fodkl ;kstuk 2021 esa bldk lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ lkoZtfud Hkwfe mi;ksx dj fn;k x;k gSA nkos vkifRr cqyk, tkus ij vkosnd }kjk",,,,,,,,,

vkifRr yh xbZ ftls lquk ugh x;k ,oa bls lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ lkoZtfud gh j[kk x;k gSa",,,,,,,,,

1-4 fofHkUu foHkkxksa dh vukifRr dk fooj.k%& iz’uk/khu izdj.k esa jktLo foHkkx ,oa uxj fuxe dk vfhker 21 fnol esa izkIr ugha gqvk gS ,oa",,,,,,,,,

bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk izkf/kdkjh dh izLrkfor ;kstuk esa hkwfe vkus ds dkj.k vukifRr ugh nh xbZ gSA e-iz-fo-fodâ€"fy- }kjk hkwfe ij ,d 33@11",,,,,,,,,

ds-oh-fxzM lc Lvs’ku gsrq 30X40 ehVj txg vkjf{kr djuk vko’;d gS] dk er fn;k x;k gSA,,,,,,,,,

1-5 lfefr ds lnL;ksa dk vfhker%&,,,,,,,,,

I-uxj fuos’kd & tc nkos vkifRr cqykbZ xbZ rc bl Hkwfe dks vkoklh; ls ih-,l-ih- D;ksa fd;k x;k ,oa ih-,l-ih dks gVkus dk dksbZ rdZ ugh gSA",,,,,,,,,

IIlapkyd & fodkl ;kstuk 1991 esa bl Hkwfe dk mi;ksx D;k FkkA izk:i fodkl ;kstuk 2021 esa blsa vkoklh; fd;k x;k ,oa fQj bls lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ lkoZtfud",,,,,,,,,

esa D;ksa ifjofrZr fd;k x;kA ,e-vkj&3 dk fuekZ.k dkZu djsxk ,oa ,l-Vh-ih dk fIII- izkstsDV Mk;jsDVj& ,e-vkj-&3 ij o""kZ 2010 ls vkt fnukad rd izkf/kdj.k dh izLrkfor ;kstuk esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30 ds varxZr fdruh vuqefr;kW",,,,,,,,,

iznku dh tk pqdh gSA,,,,,,,,,

1-6 lfefr dk lkewfgd fu""d""kZ%& iz’uk/khu LFky ds lehi vkosnd dh vkoklh; dkWyksuh gSA uxj fuxe }kjk dksbZ vkifRr ugh yh xbZ gS ,oa izdj.k",,,,,,,,,

esa la;qDr lapkyd] uxj rFkk xzke fuos’k dk;kZy; bankSj dh mikarj.k gsrq vuq’kla k ,oa bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk yh xbZ vkifRr ds ifjisz{; esa",,,,,,,,,

fuEu fu.kZ; fy;s x;s%&,,,,,,,,,

1- bankSj fodkl izkff/kdj.k dh ,e-vkj-&3 ds lehi izLrkfor ;kstuk ij ¼’kklu ds le{k yafcr ;kstuk½ ij ‘’kklu fu.kZ; vuqlkj fu.kZ; fy;k tkosA",,,,,,,,,

2- ,e-vkj-&3 ds fuekZ.k esa vkus okyh ykxr dk vkosnd ls 50 izfr’kr rd dk va’knku fy;k tkosA",,,,,,,,,

3- Hkwfe ij dk;Zikyu@v/kh{k.k ;a=h e-iz-fo?kqr forj.k daiuh ds er vuqlkj 33@11 ds-oh-xzsM lc Lvs’ku gsrq 30X40 oxZ ehVj dh txg j[kh tkosA,,,,,,,,,

mijksDr ‘’krksZ ds lkFk 10-513 gsDV- Hkwfe dk lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ lkoZtfud ls vkoklh; ,oa 3-809 gsDVs;j Hkwfe dk O;olkf;d mi;ksx gsrq",,,,,,,,,

miUrj.kdh vuq’kalk dh tkrh gSA,,,,,,,,,

izdj.k Øekad &2,,,,,,,,,

2-1 fo""k;%& Jh latho jkBkSj Jherh deys’k jkBksj] f’k{kk ,oa lekt mRFkku lfefr] xzke cjk:] ftyk lkxj }kjk ][kljk Ø- 188@1] 190@5] 190@4",,,,,,,,,

dqy jdck 2-69 gsDVs;j dk va’k Hkkx jdck 1-214 gsDVs;j ds orZeku Hkw&mi;ksx ** O;olkf;d d`f""k ,oa d`f""k ls lkoZtfud ,oa v/kZ lkoZtfud**",,,,,,,,,

¼’kS{kf.kd½ miakrj.k ckcr~ izdj.kA,,,,,,,,,

2-2 izdj.k dk laf{kIr fooj.k%&iz’uk/khu Lfky uxj fuxe lhek ds ckgj lkxj dsUV jksM dks >kalh Nrjiqj Qksj ysu tksM+us okys iz/kkuea=h lM+d,,,,,,,,,

;kstuk ij iVdqbZ xzke ds frjkgs ls mRrj fn’kk dh vksj iVdqbZ cjk: iz/kkuea=h lM+d ij 400 ehVj dh njw h ij fLFkr gSA iVdqbZ cjk: ekxZ vUrr%,,,,,,,,,

iz’uk/khu Lfy ds le{k tkrk gqvk yxHkx 1-4 fd-eh- dh nwjh ij ¼mRrj fn’kk½ Qksj ysu ls tqM+rk gSAâ€​,,,,,,,,,

At item No.1.6, a decision has been taken by the committee in respect of land of the petitioners. It has been held that 10.513 hectares land can be",,,,,,,,,

used for residential purposes and 3.809 hectares can be used for commercial purposes. It is also pertinent to note that the applications was submitted,,,,,,,,,

by the petitioners on prescribed format by paying proper fees and Section 23-A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,,,,,,,,,

provides for change of plan on payment or levy of charge, as mentioned in the statute.",,,,,,,,,

After the recommendation of the committee, the matter went before the State Government and again noting of the file obtained through Right to",,,,,,,,,

Information Act are on record. At Page 74 and 75, the Deputy Secretary has observed that the recommendations of the committee are not binding",,,,,,,,,

upon the State Government because they have earlier passed an order in the matter under Section 17 (A) of the Adhiniyam.,,,,,,,,,

This Court has carefully gone through the Section 23 (A) of the Adhiniyam of 1973. Section 23 (A) provides for change of land use and for this,,,,,,,,,

purpose, a committee was constituted and the committee has given a positive report in favour of the petitioners.",,,,,,,,,

In the considered opinion of this Court, the recommendations of the committee cannot be brushed aside in the manner and method it has been done in",,,,,,,,,

the present case. This Court in the case of Ghanshyam Das Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust (supra) has also considered the change of land use and,,,,,,,,,

the writ petition i.e. W.P. No.2785/2016 has been allowed based upon the recommendations of the Expert Committee.,,,,,,,,,

In another case i.e. W.P. No.4846/2013 decided by coordinate Bench of this Court Nilesh Jain & Another v/s State of M.P. & Others again a similar,,,,,,,,,

controversy has been looked into. Paragraphs 18 to 26 of the same reads as under:-,,,,,,,,,

“18. It is not in dispute that in proposed development plan of Town and Country Planning, the land use of the land in question was for 'Residential'",,,,,,,,,

purpose. In 2008, final development plan was published in which the land use is changed from 'Residential' to 'Recreational' use. The Division Bench",,,,,,,,,

of this Court in Writ Appeal No.818 of 2009, vide order dated 18.2.2010, directed for constitution of the committee under Section 17A of the",,,,,,,,,

Adhiniyam, who shall submit its opinion to the Director and the Director to submit it to the State Government in accordance with law, thereafter, the",,,,,,,,,

State Government has to take steps in accordance with law. The committee after considering the objection and hearing of the parties have suggested,,,,,,,,,

to change the land use to 'Residential'. The same has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. The Director and the State Government without,,,,,,,,,

assigning any reason passed the impugned order whereas, in some of the matters on identical circumstances, the report of the committee constituted",,,,,,,,,

under Section 17-A was accepted and passed an appropriate order.,,,,,,,,,

It is true that the State Government is not bound by such opinion and entitled to take its own decision in the matter provided there is material,,,,,,,,,

available on record to form opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan was necessary. Formation of opinion is a condition,,,,,,,,,

precedent for setting the law in motion proposing substantial modifications in the draft development plan.,,,,,,,,,

The formation of the opinion by the State Government should reflect intense application of mind. In the case in hand, there was no material before",,,,,,,,,

the State Government for its consideration that it has become necessary not to accept the recommendation of the committee when in identical,,,,,,,,,

circumstances, the same was accepted and the permission was granted, I am of the view that there has been no formation of the opinion by the State",,,,,,,,,

Government to reject the recommendation of the committee constituted under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam.,,,,,,,,,

I have also considered the return filed by the State Government. There has been no material available with the State Government, in rejecting the",,,,,,,,,

proposal of the committee. There is nothing on record suggesting as to what public interest parameter weighed with the State Government.,,,,,,,,,

On due consideration of the fact and material available on record, it is established that the State Government took the action proposing to reject the",,,,,,,,,

proposal of the committee constituted under Section 17A of the Adhiniyam without formulating any opinion.,,,,,,,,,

The writ petitioners are deprived of their right to use the land for 'Residential' purpose for a period of more than 32 years. The authority included,,,,,,,,,

the land in residential zone and in adjoining area, the plan has been revised by the State Government from time to time. In some of the cases, the State",,,,,,,,,

Government accepted the report of the same committee constituted under Section 17A whereas in the present case, the constituted committee has",,,,,,,,,

given a report in favour of the petitioner as no one raised any objection and members of the committee unanimously decided to accept the proposal,,,,,,,,,

and recommended the writ petitioners to change the land use from 'Recreational' to 'Residential', but the State Government without any reason turned",,,,,,,,,

down the aforesaid proposal knowing well that the adjoining land owners are utilizing their land for residential purpose. The reasons for the formation,,,,,,,,,

of the belief must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence 24. The respondent No.4 in his reply very categorically admitted that,",,,,,,,,,

;ks-

dzfnukad

122","lq>ko@

vkifRrdrkZ

dk uke o

irk","Xkzke

, oa

[kljk

dza-","vkifRr@lq>ko

dk lkjka'k","vaxh

d`r

fodk l

;","izk:i

fodkl

;kstuk

esa

Hkwfe

mi;ks","dk;kZy;hu

Vhi","Lfef

r

dk

lq>k

o","lapky

d dk

vfHke

r",Vhi

,,,,"kstuk

esa

Hkwfe

mi;ks

x",x,,,,

04/08/08,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

,"VªLVh ?

ku';kenkl

lka?kh

eseksfj;y

psfjVoy

VªLV

25] iykfl;k

esu jksM]

bUnkSj","bUnkSj

dLck

1555

ls

1578

,oa

1580

jdck

7-

72

,dM","izk:i ;kstuk

esa Hkwfe

izk:i ;kstuk

esa Hkwfe

mi;ksx xzhu

csYV m?kku

izLrkfor fd;k

x;k gSAÂ bl

Hkwfe ds vkl

ikl ds {k=s

esa vf/kdk'ka

vkoklh;

dkWyksfu;k

fodflr gksdj

Hkou cus gS

rFkk iwoZ

esa vkokl ,oa

i;kZoj.k

foHkkx ds

vkns'k dza-

6154@32

fnukad 16-

12- 80 }kjk

vf/kfu;e&73

dh

/kkjk

35¼2½ ds

varxZr

{ksf=; m?kku

dh ifjf/k ls

gVkdj vkoklh;

mi;ksx esa

ifjorZu fd;k

x;k gSAÂ

mDr vkns'k

izkesljh Lvkiy

dh Js.kh esa

vkrk gSA

iwoZ esa Hkh

fodkl ;kstuk

ds izdk'ku ds

le;] VªLV

}kjk vkifRr;ka

izLrqr dh x;h

FkhAÂ ijUrq

izk:i ;kstuk;s

fujLr gksus ls

fujkdj.k ugh

gksA",vkok l,m|ku,"ekf.k ckx

isysl ds

fudV

gksus ds

dkj.k

Hkwfe dk

mi;ksx

izLrkfor

gS A","Pwafd 'kklu ds

}kjk Hkwfe dk

mi;ksx igys gh

vkoklh; fd;k tk

pqdk gSÂ vr%

mls vkoklh; j[kk

tkuk mfpr gksxk

D;ksafd mlls yx

dj vkoklh; fuokl

fLFkr

gS A",,

funsZ'kA,,,,,,,,,

¼1½ mijksDr fo""k;kUrxZr lanHkZ esa mYys[k gS fd fo""k;kUrxZr Hkwfe ds Hkwfe mi;ksx ifjorZu ckcr~ lqJh jkfxuh lka?kh&VªLVh ';ke nkl",,,,,,,,,

lka?kh eseksfj;y psjsVhcy VªLV dh vkSj ls ekuuh; ea=hth ds le{k izLrqr vkosnu dh izfrfyfi bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh gSA,,,,,,,,,

¼2½  iz'uk/khu Hkwfe] izLrqr nLrkostksa vuqlkj VªLV dh gSA,,,,,,,,,

¼3½ iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk&1991 esa Hkwfe mi;ksx vkeksn&izeksn vUrxZr ikdZ gsrw izLrkfor FkkA,,,,,,,,,

¼4½ iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk Hkwfe mi;ksx vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx ds vkns'k dzekad 6154@6552@32@80 fnukad 16-12-80 }kjk e-iz- uxj rFkk",,,,,,,,,

xzke fuos'k vf/kfu;e&1973 dh /kkjk,,,,,,,,,

 35¼2½ vUrxZr yksdfgr esa vkeksn&izeksn ¼ikdZ½ ls fudkydj vkoklh; ifjofrZr fd;k x;k,,,,,,,,,

FkkA,,,,,,,,,

¼5½bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk izk:iksa esa iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk Hkwfe mi;ksx vkeksn&izeksn gsrw gh izLrkfor fd;k x;k FkkA,,,,,,,,,

 ¼6½ bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk&2021 esa Hkh bl Hkwfe dk Hkwfe mi;kxs vkeksn&izeksn vUrxZr,,,,,,,,,

{ks=h; m/kku izLrkfor fd;k x;k FkkA iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ds bl izLrkfor mi;ksx ds fo:) VªLV }kjk mls vkoklh; fd;s tkus gsrw vkifRr izLrqr dh xbZ,,,,,,,,,

FkhA izLrqr vkifRr dh Nk;k izfr layXu izsf""kr gS ¼ifjf'k""V&1½A vkifRr ds lkFk vkns'k fnukad 16-12-80 dh Nk;k izfr",,,,,,,,,

Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ FkhA bl vkifRr ij vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&17&d¼1½ vUrxZr xfBr lfefr dh lquokbZ esa iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk Hkwfe mi;kxs,,,,,,,,,

vkeksn&izeksn ls vkoklh; fd, tkus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ FkhA lfefr dh vuq'kalk lEcU/kh i`""B dh Nk;k izfr lyXu izsf""kr gS",,,,,,,,,

¼ifjf'k""V&2½ jkT; 'kklu }kjk fnukad 1-1-2008 dks tks bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk&2021 ykxw dh xbZ gS mlesa iqu% iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk Hkwfe mi;ksx",,,,,,,,,

vkeksn&izeksn vUrxZr {ks=h; m/kku izLrkfor gSA;g Hkh lgh gS fd bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk&2021 esa bl ;kstuk ds ykxw gksus ds iwoZ tks Hkwfe,,,,,,,,,

mi;ksx ifjorZu@mikarj.k fd;s x;s Fks mUgs ekU; fd;k x;k gSA,,,,,,,,,

vr% mijksDr fLFkfr dks n`f""Vxr j[krs gq, jkT; 'kklu }kjk tufgr esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 16-12-",,,,,,,,,

80 }kjk Hkw&mi;ksx ifjorZu dks ekU; djus ij jkT; 'kklu leqfpr fopkj dj ldrk gSA iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dks bUnkSj fodkl ;kstuk&2021 esa fLFkfr n'kkZus,,,,,,,,,

okys ekufp=¼ifjf'k""V&3½",,,,,,,,,

rFkk iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dk izLrkfor Hkwfe n'kkZus okyk [kljk ekufp= ¼ifjf'k""V&4½ layXu izsf""kr gSA",,,,,,,,,

layXu%& la;qDr lapkyd,,,,,,,,,

     uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k,,,,,,,,,

dzekad@Â Â uxzkfu@09]Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â bUnkSj e0iz0,,,,,,,,,

fyfi%& izeq[k lfpo] e-iz- 'kklu vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx Hkksiky dh vkSj lwpukFkZ iszf""krA",,,,,,,,,

la;qDr lapkyd,,,,,,,,,

        uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k                 bUnkSj e0iz0,,,,,,,,,

It is pertinent to note that while matter was being considered by the respondents, the respondents in their wisdom preferred a writ appeal i.e. W.A.",,,,,,,,,

No.808/2009 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2010. The matter relating to the petitioner's land use was looked into by the,,,,,,,,,

committee constituted for the purpose and the committee opined that since the land use of the petitioner's land has already been changed by the State,,,,,,,,,

Government, the land use of the petitioner's land should be designated as residential. Report of the committee accepting the objection of the petitioner",,,,,,,,,

is on record (Annexure P-17) and the Director, Town & Country Planning also agreed with the recommendation of the committee and forwarded the",,,,,,,,,

matter for decision to the State Government. The recommendations of the Director are also on record as Annexure P-18.,,,,,,,,,

The State of Madhya Pradesh while considering the opinion of the committee and the Director, Town & Country Planning has divided the various",,,,,,,,,

cases in two different categories i.e. Schedule -A, Schedule- B, Schedule-C and Schedule-D. We consider",,,,,,,,,

 Category/Schedule-A  and,,,,,,,,,

Category/Schedule- B,,,,,,,,,

Category- A:-,,,,,,,,,

The cases where committee and respondent No.2 have rejected the objection and the respondent No.1 has also rejected the same. Category- B:-,,,,,,,,,

The cases where recommendations for land use were accepted to be made in final plan after hearing the parties under Section 19 (2) of the Act,",,,,,,,,,

1973.,,,,,,,,,

The respondents again committed a mistake by placing the petitioner's case in Category-A. In fact, in case of the petitioner, committee as well as",,,,,,,,,

respondent No.2- Director, Town & Country Planning had allowed the objections of the petitioner and recommended to keep the land use of the",,,,,,,,,

petitioner as residential, meaning thereby, the case of the petitioner was to be included in category B not in category-A. The petitioner immediately",,,,,,,,,

protested in the matter and submitted a representation to the respondents, however, nothing was done and, therefore, petitioner was again forced to",,,,,,,,,

file a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.8134/13. This Court vide order dated 07.8.2014 has directed the State Government to decide the representation of the,,,,,,,,,

petitioner within 45 days.,,,,,,,,,

A committee was constituted by the State Government with Senior Officers of the Town and Country Planning Department as there were mistakes,,,,,,,,,

and irregularities in the final development plan, the committee on 28.09.2013 after going through the entire record once again held that the petitioner's",,,,,,,,,

land use should be designated as residential. However, to the utter surprise to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents",,,,,,,,,

on 28.10.2015 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, first mistake which has been committed in the",,,,,,,,,

matter is that the respondents have ignored the recommendations of the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning and the Committee constituted in",,,,,,,,,

the matter have decided the objections raised by the petitioner. Petitioner's objections were looked into by the committee and the committee,,,,,,,,,

categorically directed for change of land use, hence, by placing the petitioner in wrong category i.e. Category -A, all further proceedings have taken",,,,,,,,,

place. First committee constituted in the matter as well as the Director, Town & Country Planning have recommended for change of land use after",,,,,,,,,

hearing under Section 19(2) of the Act and, therefore, matter relating to the petitioner should have been included in Category-B not in Category-A,",,,,,,,,,

therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, all further proceedings, which have taken place are pursuant to wrong inclusion of the petitioner's case in",,,,,,,,,

Category-A are bad in law and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Another important aspect of the case is that before preparing the,,,,,,,,,

development plan, the Director, Town & Country Planning as required under Section 15 is required to prepare the existing land use map. The",,,,,,,,,

development plan 2021 was published in official gazette on 13.07.2006 and the Director while preparing the existing land use map has wrongly,,,,,,,,,

prepared the map ignoring the fact that the petitioner's land use has been changed to residential vide order dated 16.12.1980 passed by the State,,,,,,,,,

Government and in all fairness the Director, Town & Country Planning while preparing the development plan should have reflected the land use as",,,,,,,,,

residential and, therefore, on account of mistake committed by the Director, Town & Country Planning while preparing the existing land use maps, the",,,,,,,,,

petitioner is still suffering in the matter. Not only this, prior to development plan 2021, development plan 1991, which was declared in the year 1975",,,,,,,,,

was in force. After the development plan, 1975, at least in 22 cases, land uses were changed like it was done in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner",,,,,,,,,

has given examples of Anjuman Saiff Daudi bohra School, Maharana Pratap Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, IDA and Bhawalkar CAT karmchari",,,,,,,,,

Abhiyant Sangh and in all these cases the land use was park and the same was changed to residential.,,,,,,,,,

In case of the petitioner again land use was changed in respect of development plan 1991 and the Director submitted the report as required under,,,,,,,,,

Section 50 of the Act incorrectly reflecting the land use as regional park as the same reflects in the order passed by the State Government. Another,,,,,,,,,

important aspect of the case is that after an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2023/2008, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning has",,,,,,,,,

opined that the petitioner's land should be designated a residential as the subsequent committee has recommended the land use as residential and only,,,,,,,,,

because the petitioner's case was placed in wrong category, the petitioner is still suffering.",,,,,,,,,

There appears to be total non-appearance of the mind in the case of the petitioner in not treating the petitioner's land use as residential whereas the,,,,,,,,,

land use had already been changed by the State Government vide order dated 16.12.1980 and the same has been safely ignored by the State,,,,,,,,,

Government.,,,,,,,,,

In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the State Government/State has to pave the path of extinction. The surrounding",,,,,,,,,

areas including the area of Ms. Seema Sanghi has been developed as residential and the area, which is surround by residential colony owned by the",,,,,,,,,

petitioner cannot be treated as regional park in the development plan 2021 ignoring the report of the committee, which was a committee constituted for",,,,,,,,,

specific purpose by the State Government.,,,,,,,,,

Resultantly, in light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondents dated 28.10.2015",,,,,,,,,

deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.",,,,,,,,,

It is pertinent to note that out of total area 7.78 Acres and 4.5 Acres of which the land use was deleted in 1980, a colony has been established over",,,,,,,,,

4.5 Acres of land and it has been fully developed for residential purpose. Thus, now, total 12.12 Acres land is not available to be developed as regional",,,,,,,,,

park. Not only this, the order of the State Government passed in 1980 has been given a complete go bye and in case of identically placed persons,",,,,,,,,,

respondents have already changed the land use based upon the recommendations of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning and the committee",,,,,,,,,

constituted for the purpose, therefore, the writ petition stands allowed by modifying the land use of the petitioner by treating it as residential.",,,,,,,,,

The impugned order orders Annexure P-19 and P-20 are quashed. The Stat Government is directed to pass an appropriate order designating the land,,,,,,,,,

use of the petitioner as residential within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.,,,,,,,,,

With the aforesaid directions, another writ petition i.e. W.P. No.1606/2016 also stands disposed of. Respondents are directed to issue an appropriate",,,,,,,,,

order in respect of the land use of the petitioner as aforesaid.,,,,,,,,,

On due consideration of the aforesaid, so also the fact that the surrounding area has been developed as Residential and the area which is",,,,,,,,,

surrounded by residential colony owned by the petitioners cannot be treated as Regional Park in the development plan, 2021, ignoring the report of the",,,,,,,,,

committee , which was a committee constituted for the specific purpose by the State Government in pursuance to the order passed by the Division",,,,,,,,,

Bench. Thus, the impugned order (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondents dated 27.8.2012, deserves to the quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.",,,,,,,,,

The State Government is directed to pass an appropriate order designating the land use of the petitioners as 'Residential', within a period of three",,,,,,,,,

months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.,,,,,,,,,

The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, based upon the recommendations to the committee constituted for specific purpose by the State Government, has",,,,,,,,,

directed the respondents to pass appropriate order designating the land use of the petitioners as ‘Residential’.,,,,,,,,,

In the present case also, an expert committee was constituted by the State Government and the minutes of the committee could not have been",,,,,,,,,

overlooked, as has been done by the State Government keeping in view Section 23 (A) of the Adhiniyam. Not only this, the entire area is surrounded",,,,,,,,,

by residential township and the petitioners were developing the entire area as residential township and permission was also granted by TRIFAC based,,,,,,,,,

upon the Foreign Direct,,,,,,,,,

Investment. Another important aspect of the case as brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners in,,,,,,,,,

their plan for developing residential township has already kept a provision for using the land for Public and Semi Public use also, and therefore, it",,,,,,,,,

appears to be no justification in marking an additional area for Public and Semi Public use.,,,,,,,,,

Resultantly, keeping in view the recommendations of the committee, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed",,,,,,,,,

and is accordingly allowed. The State Government is directed to pass a necessary order for declaring the land use as ‘Residential’ keeping in,,,,,,,,,

view the minutes of the committee dated 07.05.2013, which have been quoted by this Court, by passing an appropriate order within a period of three",,,,,,,,,

months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.,,,,,,,,,

It is needless to mention that the State Government shall be free to levy the fees, which is required in terms of Section 23 (A) of the Madhya Pradesh",,,,,,,,,

Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. The appropriate order shall be subject to payment of fee, as provided under Section 23 (A) of the Adhiniyam",,,,,,,,,

of 1973.,,,,,,,,,

Certified copy as per rules.,,,,,,,,,