SHWETANK GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
LAWS(MPH)-2015-3-223
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 30,2015

Shwetank Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Appellant
VERSUS
State of M.P. and Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION V/S. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. KEWALYADAV [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.R. Waghmare, J. - (1.)These two writ petitions are taken up together since they arise out of common question raised by the petitioners Societies namely Shwetank Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (W.P. No. 10951/12) and Suniket Cooperative housing Society Ltd. (W.P. No. 10958/120. This common order shall regulate both these appeals. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Societies have challenged the order dated 12 -10 -2012 passed by respondent No. 1/Principal Secretary, the State of M. P. reviewing its earlier order dated 20 -12 -1984 and 11 -8 -1995 without issuing show cause notice to the petitioners and without complying with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 1132/03.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners are Housing Societies duly registered under the M.P. Co -operative Societies Act and the petitions are filed through the respective Presidents. The petitioner Society is the bhumi swami of the land bearing Survey Nos. 58 (parts) and 59 admeasuring 5.337 hectares situated at village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore in W.P. No. 10951/12 and the petitioner Society is the bhumiswami of the land bearing Survey Nos. 60 and 61 admeasuring 3.711 hectares situated at village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore in W.P. No. 10958/12. The petitioner purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 11 -7 -1997 and 11 -12 -2000. However the respondent No. 2/IDA had framed the Scheme No. 97 regarding the lands situated in village Hukmakhedi and the nearby villages in the said scheme and the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were undertaken. The validity of the Scheme however happened to be challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 550/1991 and during pendency of the petition, the predecessor -in -title of the present petitioner Society, Shri Sitaram Kaluji moved an application for release of his land from the said scheme before the State Government (Resp. No. 1). The State Government in exercise of its power conferred under Sec. 52 of the Act directed the IDA vide order dated 20 -12 -1994 to acquire only 1.025 hectares of the land required for Ring Road and to release the remaining 8.023 hectare land falling in Survey Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 61 of village Hukmakhedi, Tehsil and Distt. Indore from the Scheme No. 1997. A copy of the order dated 20 -12 -1994 is Annexure P/4. It has also came about that under the new master plan, 2021, there is no proposal for acquirement of 1.025 hectares of land for the Ring Road and 'land use' of the disputed said land was reserved for residential purpose in the master plan of 2021. However, the respondent/IDA requested the respondent No. 1/State to review its order dated 20 -12 -1994 and the State, however, rejected the request and hence the earlier directions remained in force and the government also called for a compliance report. The petitioners, therefore, assumed that their application for release of their land from the Scheme before the State Government would be duly processed and hence the petitioners did not press the petitions and the same were dismissed as not pressed. Thirty six other petitions regarding the same Scheme No. 97 of the IDA were heard on the merits and allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 10 -12 -1998. A copy of the order passed in M.P. No. 268/1991 is Annexure P/7 to the petition. This Court clearly held that Scheme had lapsed and acquisition proceedings were bad -in -law for non -compliance of Sec. 5 -A of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel submitted that the petitioner was, therefore, entitled for the release of land, however, after passing of 7 years, the respondent No. 2 IDA issued show cause notice to the predecessor -in -title of the petitioner Shri Sitaram S/o. Kaluji proposing to review the order dated 20 -12 -1994 (Annexure P/4). Thereafter the case of the petitioner followed chequered proceedings. Respondent No. 1/State after hearing the parties reviewed its decision dated 20 -12 -1994 and passed an order dated 16 -6 -2003 Annexure P/8. This order was challenged by late Shri Sitaram in W.P. No. 1132/2003 and although this Court has set aside the order dated 16 -6 -2003, however, this Court left it open to the State to initiate fresh proceedings after issuing a show cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The order of the High Court is Annexure P/9 dated 18 -12 -2008. Thereafter the petitioner wrote several letters to the respondent/IDA as well as the State Government for grant of NOC regarding the release of the said land, despite such repeated requests; no answer has been given by the respondent/IDA to either the petitioner or to the predecessor Shri Sitaram. Counsel vehemently urged the fact without a formal No Objection Certificate confirming that the land stands released from Scheme No. 97 it was very difficult for the petitioners, to get further approvals for development or transfer of the land in question from the respondents/Departments. Counsel very candidly submitted that the Ring Road proposed to pass through the said land is not now so earmarked in the new master plan of 2021 of the respondent/IDA and for all practical purposes Scheme No. 97 has ceased to exist. Besides Counsel also submitted that there promissory estoppel against the respondent IDA since the assurance was given in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner had also filed a Contempt Petition bearing No. 119/12 (Annexure P/12) which is pending consideration. However, the petitioner has now learnt that the State Government on 15 -9 -2010 wrote a letter to the IDA regarding release of the land and for grant of compensation and Counsel urged that compensation was also not paid to the petitioners.
(3.)Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are still in possession of their land and there was no question regarding the land vesting in the respondent No. 2 IDA. However, the State Government taking advantage of the liberty granted in W.P. No. 2732/12 to initiate fresh proceedings reviewed its order and set aside the same by impugned order dated 12 -10 -2012 passed by respondent State the Chief Secretary, State Government of M. P. and hence the present petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.