Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Act 1972 – Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Modification of the layout plan – The appellantboard 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 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 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. The writ petition challenging the orders dated 12th May 2008 (direction of the Commissioner to re-examine the request for modification) and 24th September 2008 (order of the Deputy Director, T&CP approving the modified layout plan) was filed in 2015, nearly seven years after the approval for modification was granted. In the meanwhile, 42 out of 52 plots had been sold to third parties for consideration. The impugned judgment notices that many of these bonafide owner-purchasers had completed the construction and some houses were in advanced stages of construction. While the High Court has noticed and recorded these facts, it has failed to give due credence to the delay, the change in position and creation of third-party rights by wrongly applying the principle of promissory estoppel and lis pendens. Innocent plot owners on whom the brunt had fallen were not even heard before they were deprived and denied their rights by the adverse order. Considerable delay and laches of nearly seven years in approaching the court had resulted in change in position as third-party rights had been 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. [Para 8][1217-E-H]
3. The Ujjain Municipal Corporation was not made a party and had no opportunity to represent their stand on the change in the layout plan. If required and felt necessary, the High Court could have issued notice to the Ujjain Municipal Corporation and obtained their opinion. Stand of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the authorities under the Adhiniyam, supporting the modification, was on record. Normally opposition and prejudice should not be presumed, unless there are grounds and reasons. Given the fact that the change in the present case was from commercial to residential, there was no ground and reason that would suggest objection or opposition from the Ujjain Municipal Corporation. [Para 9][1217-E-F]
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and Others. (2007) 8 SCC 705 : [2007] 6 SCR 799; Rajendra Shankar Shukla and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2015) 10 SCC 400 : [2015] 11 SCR 723 ; Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another (2006) 4 SCC 322 : [2006] 3 SCR 783
– relied on.
State of M.P. and Others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others (1986) 4 SCC 566 : [1987] 1 SCR 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.