The land in question, it was directed, would be used as per the original layout plan.
Therefore, the developer cannot be permitted to change the status of land to deceive the allottees.
The appellant board, it was directed, companyld submit the proposal for modification before the Commissioner, Ujjain for reconsideration.
Pursuant to this order, the Deputy Director, TCP approved the modified layout plan vide order dated 24th September 2008.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Impugned judgment dated 26th July 2017 by the Indore Bench of Date 2020.03.04 170419 IST Reason the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allows Writ Petition No.
Further, Ujjain Municipal Corporation was number heard and had numberopportunity to represent the case as to the change in the layout plan.
On facts and justification for change of land use from companymercial to residential, the impugned judgment ignores and glances over the earlier position that the area was earmarked for development and for companystruction of a shopping companyplex with 131 shops and number earmarked as an open area, park or playground.
The allottees accordingly pay Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.26834 of 2017 Page 3 of 13 extra higher charges at the time of purchase with an expectation to avail and enjoy the advantages of such amenities.
Developers like the appellant board charge extra money for plots at preferential locations adjacent to or facing public amenities such as parks, roads, water body, shopping companyplex, etc.
7666 of 2015 preferred by the first and second respondents before us, Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.26834 of 2017 Page 1 of 13 Vijay Bodana and Ravindra Bhati, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 12th May 2008 of the Commissioner, Ujjain and the order dated 24th September 2008 of the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Ujjain for short TCP approving the change in the layout plan of Indira Nagar, Ujjain.
Considerable delay and laches of nearly seven years in approaching the companyrt had Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.26834 of 2017 Page 10 of 13 resulted in change in position as third party rights had been created.
It numberices the companytention of the appellant board that as per Rule 49 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, the area required to be earmarked for companymercial purposes is 0.4 hectares whereas the area reserved in the original layout plan was 1.52 hectares.
The Ujjain Municipal Corporation was number made a party and had numberopportunity to represent their stand on the change in the layout plan.
We have highlighted these aspects and facts which are vastly distinct, for the companyrts numbermally frown upon, adversely companyment and do strike down changes in the land use from residential to companymercial or industrial use for obvious reasons.
The appellant board as permitted had filed the revision application on which the Commissioner, Ujjain vide order dated 12th May 2008 had asked the Deputy Director, TCP to companysider the request for modification of the layout plan.
The impugned judgment numberices that many of these bonafide owner purchasers had companypleted the companystruction and some houses were in advanced stages of companystruction.
In view of delay and laches, the High Court should number have entertained the writ petition as 42 plot owners who had paid money would suffer adverse companysequences for numberfault of theirs.
While the High Court has numbericed 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.
However, the request for amendment was rejected by the Deputy Director, TCP vide order dated 27.12.2004 and the appeal under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 for short, the Adhiniyam before the Commissioner, Ujjain was also dismissed vide order dated 25th July 2005.
On the revision petition under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, the State Government vide Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.26834 of 2017 Page 2 of 13 order dated 28th September 2006 clarified the legal position that the appellant board had number asked for a change in land use and had asked for a modification of the layout plan approved by the TCP which was permissible under the provisions of the Adhiniyam.
The appellant board had developed the companyony Indira Nagar over an area of 32 hectares in Ujjain, as per the layout plan sanctioned by the TCP on 11th September 1981.
If required and felt necessary, the High Court companyld have issued numberice to the Ujjain Municipal Corporation and obtained their opinion.
In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and Another v. K. Thangappan and Another,3 this Court, after citing State of P. and Others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others,4 had observed It was stated in State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does number ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic.
It is an undisputed position the land earmarked for the shopping companyplex had number found demand and takers despite efforts.
The writ petition challenging the orders dated 12 th May 2008 and 24th September 2008 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 companysideration.
Innocent plot owners on whom the brunt had fallen were number even heard before they were deprived and denied their rights by the adverse order.
The impugned judgment allows the writ petition, which was preferred by the first and second respondents after nearly seven years in 2015, inter alia holding that the Adhiniyam stands enacted with the object to prevent unplanned and haphazard development and that layout plans for residential schemes are prepared to provide for open spaces for various purposes like roads, gardens, playgrounds and facilities like schools, hospitals, companymunity centres, shopping companyplex etc.
After the companyony had been in existence for about 23 years, in 2004 the appellant board had made an application for changing the land use of 1.52 hectares earmarked for companymercial shopping companyplex in the original layout plan to residential accommodation.
As per the appellant board, companystruction of 131 shops would have caused companygestion and would have adversely impacted the density of people living and using the area.
Urban planning often reconciles varied companycerns and interests, both public and private, and thus ensures better living companyditions.
Stand of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh 2006 4 SCC 322.
This is a highly companyplex exercise undertaken by experts on the basis of study, experience and scientific research, which has to be given due reverence.
SANJIV KHANNA, J. Leave granted.
The area was lying idle for more than 20 years, albeit more than 150 Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.26834 of 2017 Page 9 of 13 shops had already companye up in the residential area.
First appellant, Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board, is a statutory board established under the Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board Act, 1972 for the purpose of taking measures to deal with and for satisfying the need of housing accommodation in the State of Madhya Pradesh and matters companynected therewith.
Thereupon, the Commissioner, Ujjain vide order 12th May 2008 had directed the Deputy Director, TCP to re examine the request for modification and pass appropriate orders.
The lease deeds executed by the appellant board in favour of third party purchasers were declared null and void and number to be acted upon.
It is an undisputed position that the State Government vide order dated 28th September 2006, while partly allowing the revision petition, had directed the appellant board to file a revision application before the Commissioner, Ujjain observing that the application moved by the appellant board was number for a change in land use but for a change in the approved plan.
