# CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. MIS PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM. LID. AND ORS - **Citation:** [2007] 6 S.C.R. 799 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2007-05-15 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2530 of2007 - **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Markandey Ka Tju - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chairman-indore-vikas-pradhikaran-v-mis-pure-industrial-cock-chem-lid-and-ors-23102 - **Pages:** 44 ## Headnote Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 of 1973)-Section l(j), 2(i), 2(o), 2(u), 2(v), 13. 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 20, 24, A B 38, 49, 50 & 53-Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam 1984-Publication C of draft development plan of a planning area by Town and Country Development Authority calling for objections and suggestions-Notification by the Authority declaring its intention to prepare a town development scheme-State Government rejecting the draft development plan-Authority declining to grant permission to property owners for construction in view of the notification-High Court allowing the Writ Petitions of property owners D by striking down the notification-Correctness of-Held, words used in the Act should be given a literal meaning unless the context otherwise requiresDevelopment plan does not include draft development plan-Notification issued by the Authority without a sanctioned development plan is wholly illegal and hence struck down-On facts, the Authority does not have jurisdiction over the lands of the property owners. E A Notification was issued initially by State Government under section 13(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 of 1973) (for short "the Act") laying down the limits of City Planning Area constituting certain villages. Later, another notification wa issued amending F the Planning Area by adding more villages including the two villages in question in which respondents' lands are situated, and deleting some villages. Thereafter, the appellant-Authority published a draft development plan of the Planning Area under Section 18 of the Act and called for any objections and suggestions in respect thereof. In anticipation of the sanction of the draft development plan by he State Government, the appellant published a declaration G of intention for preparing a town planning scheme in the Planning Area in Official Gazette under section 50(2) of the Act. The draft development plan came to be ultimately not sanctioned by the State Government. The applications made by the respondents for permission for 799 H 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. ...... .. A construction were rejected by the appellant on the ground of the declaration made under section 50(2) of the Act. Writ Petitions preferred by the respondents challenging the rejection of their applications seeking permissions were allowed by the High Court by striking down the declaration by holding that the draft town development scheme cannot be published by the B appellant without a development plan coming into force under the Act; that such a draft scheme cannot by itself restrict the right of a person to use his property in the manner he likes; and that the appellant-Authority does not have jurisdiction over the two villages in question. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that under the Act, a ..( c development plan includes a draft development plan; that the existence of a draft development plan would authorize it to declare its intention to prepare a town development scheme at any time under section 50 of the Act; that the preparation of the draft scheme under section 50 of the Act is not subject to the sanction of final development plan and that section 50 must be read in contrast with section 20 of the Act; that section 53 would operate as soon a D declaration is made under section 50 or otherwise section 53 of the Act would become otiose; that the draft town development scheme covers the villages in question; that private interest must be waived to public interest; and that the ... extention of the planning area by subsequent notification would ipso factor enlarge the jurisdiction of the appellant in applying the purported town ..._ E development scheme. The respondents contended that their lands are situated outside the planning area over which the appellant has jurisdiction; that the extention of the planning area by a subsequent notification would not ipso factor enlarge the jurisdiction of the ## Text _Characters 0–39,282 of 103,696. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39282 for what follows._ CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. MIS PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM. LID. AND ORS. MAY 15, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 of 1973)-Section l(j), 2(i), 2(o), 2(u), 2(v), 13. 16, 17, 17A, 18, 19, 20, 24, A B 38, 49, 50 & 53-Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam 1984-Publication C of draft development plan of a planning area by Town and Country Development Authority calling for objections and suggestions-Notification by the Authority declaring its intention to prepare a town development scheme-State Government rejecting the draft development plan-Authority declining to grant permission to property owners for construction in view of the notification-High Court allowing the Writ Petitions of property owners D by striking down the notification-Correctness of-Held, words used in the Act should be given a literal meaning unless the context otherwise requiresDevelopment plan does not include draft development plan-Notification issued by the Authority without a sanctioned development plan is wholly illegal and hence struck down-On facts, the Authority does not have jurisdiction over the lands of the property owners. E A Notification was issued initially by State Government under section 13(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 of 1973) (for short "the Act") laying down the limits of City Planning Area constituting certain villages. Later, another notification wa issued amending F the Planning Area by adding more villages including the two villages in question in which respondents' lands are situated, and deleting some villages. Thereafter, the appellant-Authority published a draft development plan of the Planning Area under Section 18 of the Act and called for any objections and suggestions in respect thereof. In anticipation of the sanction of the draft development plan by he State Government, the appellant published a declaration G of intention for preparing a town planning scheme in the Planning Area in Official Gazette under section 50(2) of the Act. The draft development plan came to be ultimately not sanctioned by the State Government. The applications made by the respondents for permission for 799 H 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. ...... .. A construction were rejected by the appellant on the ground of the declaration made under section 50(2) of the Act. Writ Petitions preferred by the respondents challenging the rejection of their applications seeking permissions were allowed by the High Court by striking down the declaration by holding that the draft town development scheme cannot be published by the B appellant without a development plan coming into force under the Act; that such a draft scheme cannot by itself restrict the right of a person to use his property in the manner he likes; and that the appellant-Authority does not have jurisdiction over the two villages in question. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that under the Act, a ..( c development plan includes a draft development plan; that the existence of a draft development plan would authorize it to declare its intention to prepare a town development scheme at any time under section 50 of the Act; that the preparation of the draft scheme under section 50 of the Act is not subject to the sanction of final development plan and that section 50 must be read in contrast with section 20 of the Act; that section 53 would operate as soon a D declaration is made under section 50 or otherwise section 53 of the Act would become otiose; that the draft town development scheme covers the villages in question; that private interest must be waived to public interest; and that the ... extention of the planning area by subsequent notification would ipso factor enlarge the jurisdiction of the appellant in applying the purported town ..._ E development scheme. The respondents contended that their lands are situated outside the planning area over which the appellant has jurisdiction; that the extention of the planning area by a subsequent notification would not ipso factor enlarge the jurisdiction of the appellant; that the definition of the 'town development F scheme' under section 2(u) of the Act presupposes an existence of a sanctioned development plan and hence the draft town development scheme is illegal; that - public interest has sufficiently been safeguarded under the Act; and that a ..,. vested right had accrued in favour of them on obtaining sanction from the Gram Panchayat which cannot be taken away. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. A statute should be considered in such a manner as a result whereof greater hardship is not caused to the citizens than actually -:<._contemplated thereby. Whereas an attempt should be made to prevent unplanned and haphazard development, the same would not mean that the court H would close its eyes to the blatant illegalities committed by the State and/or CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN' PL'RE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM LTD 8QJ the statutory authorities in implementation thereof. Implementation of such A land development as also building laws should be in consonance with public welfare and convenience. The public authority may have general considerations, safety or general welfare in mind, but the same would become irrelevant, since statutory rights of a party cannot be taken away. The Cou~ must make an endeavour to strike a balance between public interest on the one hand and protection of a constitutional right of a citizen to hold property B on the other. I Para 4711820-G-H; 821-A-Bl 1.2. An endeavour should be made to find out as to whether the statute ). takes care of public interest in the matter as against the private interest, on the one hand, and the effect of lapse and/or positive inaction on the part of the C State and other planning authorities, on the other. The courts cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the owners who are subject to the embargos placed under the statute are deprived of their valuable rightful use of the property for a long time. When a pu,blic authority is asked to perform statutory duties within the time stipulated, it is directory in nature but when it involves valuable rights of the citizens and provides for the consequences therefore, it would D be mandatory in character. The courts should, therefore, strive to find a balance of the competing interest (Paras 48, 49 and 53( [821-C-E; 822-F-Gf T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006( 8 SCC 502; Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1986( 1 SCC 581 and State of Gujarat v. Shanti/al Mangaldas & Ors., (196913SCR341, referred to. E 1.3. The Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (No. 23 of 1973) (Act), being regulatory in nature as by reason thereof the right of an owner of property to use and develop stands restricted, requires strict construction. An owner of land ordinarily would be entitled to use or develop F the same for any purpose unless there exists certain regulation in a statute or a statutory rules. Regulations contained in such statute must be interpreted in such a manner so as to least interfere with the right of property of the owner of such land. Restrictions are made in larger public interest. Such restrictions, indisputably must be a reasonable one. The statutory scheme contemplates that a person and owner of land should not ordinarily be deprived G from the user thereof by way of reservation or designation. Expropriatory legislations must be given a strict construction - >:- [Paras 59 and 60( [823-E-H; 824-A) Bairam Kumwat v. Union of India & Ors., [2003( 7 SCC 628; Krishi H 802 SUPREME COURT' REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R. A Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Ors. v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd & Anr., f 20041 1 SCC 391; Union of India & Ors. v. West Coast Paper Mills ltd. & Anr., (20041 2 SCC 747; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Daius Shapur Chenai & Ors., [2005[ 7 SCC 627; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Basant Nahata, JT [20051 8 SC 171; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manohar, [20051 8 SCC 126 (CB); Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr .. B f 19951 Supp. 1. SCC 596; Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (Dead) by LRs. v. Municipal Corporatfon of Delhi, f19951 l SCC 47 and Raju S. Jethma/ani v. State :Jf Maharashtra, (2005) 4 ~CALE 688, referred to. Sri Krishnapur Mutt. Udupi v. N. Vijayendra Shetty & :for., (1992) 3 -4.. C Kar.LJ. 326, referred to. 1.4. A draft development plan which has not attained finality cannot be held to be determinative of the rights and obligations of the parties and, thus, it can never be implemented. Section 50 of the Act explicitly states that the authority may declare its intention to prepafle a town development scheme D which having regard to Section 2(u) of the Act must be read to mean declaration of its implementation to prepare a scheme for the implementation of the provisions of a development plan. Had the legislature thought of implementation of a draft development plan, they could have also provided for an interim development plan which ipso facto would have been enforceable. A development plan can be implemented only when it is final and not when it is E at the draft stage, i.e., susceptible to changes. [Paras 73, 74 and 751 (829-E-H; 830-A-B) 1.5. A meaning assigned to a term as defined in the interpretation clause unless the context otherwise requires should be given the same meaning. In F the absence of any context indicating a contrary intention, the same meaning would be attached to the word used in the latter as is given to them in the earlier statute. The words or expression used in a statute before and after amendment should be given the same meaning. [Paras 75 and 76) [830-B-C) Venkata Subamma & Anr. v. Ramayya and Ors., AIR (1932) PC 92, G referred to. Lehnon v. Gobson & Howes Ltd., (1919) AC 709, refereed to. - Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition; G. P. Singh 's Principles of ~. - Statutory Interpretation, Tenth edition, referred to. H • CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN '· PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM LTD 803 >.. 1.6. Land use, development plan and zonal plan provided for the plan at A macro level whereas the town planning scheme is at a micro level and, thus, would be subject to development plan. A purpose which is otherwise not contemplated under Chapter IV would be brought in by side door in Chapter VII of the Act That which cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. (Paras 78 and 80) (830-F; 831-A-B] B 1.7. The purpose of declaring the intent under Section 50(1) of the Act is to implement a development plan. Section 53 of the Act freezing any other ~-\ development is an incidence arising consequent to the purpose, which purpose is to implement a development plan. If the purpose of declaring such an intention is merely to bring into play Section 53 of the Act, and thereby free7.e c all development, it would amount to exercise of the power of Section 50(1) for a collateral purpose, i.e., freezing of development rather than implementation of a development plan. The collateral purpose also will be to indirectly get over the fact that an owner of land pending finali7.8tion of a development plan has all attendant rights of ownership subject to the restraints under Section 16 of the Act. If the declaration of intent to formulate a town development D scheme is to get over Section 16 and freeze development activities under Section 53, it would amount to exercise of power for a collateral purpose. [Para 81) (831-8-D] 1.8. A bare perusal ofSections 17 and 49 of the Act would show that it E is development plan which determines the manner of usage of the land and the town development scheme enumerates the manner in which such proposed usage can be implemented. It would follow that until the usage is determined , through a development plan, the stage of manner of implementation of such proposed usage cannot be brought about It would also, therefore, follow that what is contemplated is the final development plan and not a draft development F plan, since until the development plan is finalized it would have no statutory .,.. or legal force and the land use as existing .Prior thereto with the rights of usage of the land arising therefrom would continue. (Para 82) (831-E-F) 1.9. To accept that it is open to the town development authority to declare an intention to formulate a town development scheme even without a G development plan and ipso facto bring into play a freeze on usage of the land -):- under Section 53 would lead to complete misuse of powers and arbitrary exercise thereof depriving the citizen of his right to use the land subject to . the permitted land use and laws relating to the manner of usage thereof. This would be an unlawful deprivation of the citizen's right to property which right H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R. ,- A includes within it the right to use the property in accordance with the law as ..... it stands at such time. [Para 83) (831-F-H] 1.10. The essence of planning in the Act is the existence of a development plan. It is a development plan, which under Section 17 of the Act will indicate the areas and zones, the users, the open spaces, the institutions B and offences, the special purpost'S, etc. Town planning would be based on the contents of the development plan. It is only when the development plan is in existence, can a town development scheme be framed. [Para 84] (832-C-D] 1.11. The words "at any time" under section 50(1) of the Act do not -~ - ...._ c confer upon any statutory authority an unfettered discretion to frame the town development scheme whenever it is so pleases. The words "at any time" are not charter for the exercise of an arbitrary decision as and when a scheme has to be framed. The words "at any time" have no exemption from all forms / ~ oflimitation for unexplained and undue delay. Such an interpretation would not only result in the destruction of citizens' rights but would also go contrary D to the entire context in which the power has been given to the authority. The words "at any time" have to be interpreted in the context in which they are used. Since a town developm~nt scheme in the context of the Act is intended to implement the development plan, the declaration of intention to prepare a scheme can only be in the context of a development plan. The starting point of E the declaration of the intention has to be upon the notification of development plan and the outer limit for the authority to frame such a scheme upon lapsing of the plan. Unless such a construction is to be given to the words "at any time" appearing in section 50(1) of the Act, it would lead to manifest injustice and absurdity which is not contemplated by the statute. For giving an effective meaning to the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, the same is required to be F read in the context of other provisions of the statute. The rule of purposive construction has to be applied. (Paras 86, 87, 85 and 88] (832-F, G, H; 833-A-C-D] ~ State of H.P. & Ors. v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh & Ors., [2004] 10 SCC 585; Bombay Dyeing and Mft. Co. Ltd v. Bombay Environmental Action Group G & Ors., [2006] 3 SCC 434; National lnsuracne Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, [2007] 4 SCALE 36; Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal & Ors., (2005] 2 SCC 638; Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., [1987] 1 SCC 424; High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor ~- Panchayat, [2003] 4 SCC 712; Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [2003] 7 SCC 589 and Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. v. ~ H CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN v. PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK k CHEM. LTD. 805 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385, referred to. A Francis Bennion 's Statutory Interpretation; Interpretation and Application of Statutes' by Reed Dickerson, referred to. 1.12. The appellant-authority was created for a definite purpose. Its jurisdiction was limited to the area notified. When so creating, although the B earlier notification was referred to, the same was only for the purpose of limiting the area of operation of the appellant-authority. The principle of legislation by incorporation was applied and not the principle of legislation by reference. A delegatee must exercise its jurisdiction within the fourcorners of its delegation. If it could not exercise its delegated power for the C purpose of creation of the appellant authority or extention its jurisdiction it cannot be done by amendment of a notification issued under Section 13(1) of the Act. Admittedly, the villages in question had been included by the State by a subsequent notification. Prior thereto, the said villages having not been included within the area of operation of the appellant authority, any action taken either by way of its intention to frame a town planning scheme or D otherwise shall by wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It would render its act in relation to the said villages a nullity. (Paras 102, 105 and 107) [838-B-C; G; 839-C-D) State of Orissa & Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 162; Rakesh Vij v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh E Sethi & Ors., AIR (2005) SC 3593; Howrah Municipal Corpn. v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd, (2004) l SCC 663; Union of India v. Indian Charge Chrome, (1999) 7 SCC 314; S.B. International Ltd v. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade, (1996) 2 SCC 439 and Ku/deep Singh v. Govt. NCT of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702, referred to. Laxshmi Amma v. Devassy, (1970) KLT 204, referred to. Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang, (1961) AC 901: (1961) 2 All ER 721, referred to. G. P. Singh 's 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation, I 0th Edn., referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2530 of2007. F G From the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.03 .2007 of the High Court H of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 462 of 2006. A B 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2531 and 2007. K.K. Venugopal and S.K. Gambhir, Sanjay Kapur, Sbuhra Kapur, Rajiv Kapur and Arti Singh for the Appellant. C.A. Sundaram, Arun Jaitely and Ravindra Srivastava, Nidhesh Gupta, Rohini Musa, Saboo and Binu Tamta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Interpretation of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, (No. 23 of 1973) (for short, 'the Act') is in question in these appeals which arise out of the judgments and orders dated 06.03.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ D Petition No. 9396 of 2006 and Writ Appeal No. 462 of 2006. 3. Before we advert to the said question, we may notice the admitted fact of the matter. 4. The said Act was enacted to make provisions for planning and E development and use of land; to make better provision of the preparation of the development plans and zoning plans with a view to ensuring that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective; to constitute a Town & Country Planning Authority for proper implementation of town and country development plan; to provide for the development and administration of special areas through a Special Area Development Authority; to make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land required for the purposes connected with the said matters. The said Act came into force with effect from 16.04.1973. Statutory Provisions : 5. The terms "development", "existing land use map'', "planning area", "Town Development Scheme" and "Town and Country Development Authority", which are relevant for the purpose of this case, have been defined in Section 2(f), 2(i), 2(o), 2(u) and 2(v) of the Act respectively in the following terms: CHAIRMAN, INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN '·PURE INDUSTRJAL COCK & CHEM. LTD. [S.B. SINHA, I. ) 807 "2(f) "development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying A out of a building, engineering, mining or other operation in, on over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land or in the use of either, and includes sub-division of any land;" "2(i) "existing land use map" means a map indicating the use to which B lands in any specified area are put at the time of preparing the map, and includes the register prepared, with the map giving details of land-use." "2(o)"planning area" means any area declared to be a planning area under this Act: Non-Planning area shall be construed C accordingly." "2(u)"Town Development Scheme" means a scheme prepared for the implementation of the provisions of a development plan by the Town and Country Development Authority and includes "Scheme"" "2(v)"Town and Country Development Authority" means an authority established under Section 3 8." D 6. Chapter IV of the Act deals with planning areas and development plans. Section 13(1) empowers the State Government to constitute planning areas for the purposes of the said Act and define the limits thereof. Sub- E section (2) of Section 13 empowers the State Government by notification, inter alia, to alter the limits of the planning area so as to include therein or exclude therefrom such areas, as may be specified in the notification; to amalgamate two or more planning areas so as to constitute one planning area; to divide any planning area into two more planning areas; and to declare that F the whole or part of the area constituting the planning area shall cease to be a planning area or part thereof. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act provides for a non-obstante clause, in terms whereof, the local authority mentioned therein shall in relation to the planning areas from the date of the notification issued under sub-section ( 1) cease to exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties which the State Government or the G Director is competent to exercise. Section 14 of the Act enables the Director to prepare an existing land use map and development plan. Section 15 enables the Director to carry out the survey and prepare an existing land use map and forthwith publish the same in the manner laid down therein. Once such a plan is published, no person is authorised to institute or change the use of any H 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. B c D E F 7. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16, however, provides : "(b) no local authority or any officer or other authority shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, grant permission for the change in use of land otherwise than as indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director." 8. Section 17 provides as to what should be the contents of the development plan. Section 17 A(I) provides for constitution of a committee; sub-sections (2) and (3) whereof read as under : "(2) The Committee constituted under sub-section (!), shall : (a) consider and suggest modifications and alterations in the draft development plan prepared by the Director under section 14; (b) hear the objections after the publication of the draft development plan under section 18 and suggest modifications or alterations if any; to the Director. (3) The Convenor of the Committee shall record in writing all the suggestions, modifications and alterations recommended by the committee under sub-section (2) and thereafter forward his report to the Director." 9. Section 18 of the Act provides for publication of a development plan; in terms whereof the objections and suggestions in writing are invited with respect thereto. The notice in terms of the said provision is to specify "'I' in regard to the draft development plan, inter a/ia, the following particulars: G "(i) the existing land use maps; (iv) the provisions for enforcing the draft development plan and - '\, stating the manner in which permission for development may be -:<. - H CHAJR.'l'~· NTIORE VIKAS PR.. 2004 in terms whereof a draft scheme must be approved within the period of A one year from the publication thereof. Section 51 provides for revision of the draft scheme. Section 53 imposes restrictions on land use and land development in the following terms : "53. As from the date of publication of the declaration to prepare a town development scheme, no person shall. within the area included B in the scheme. institute or change the use of any land or building or carry out any development, save in accordance with the development authorised by the Director in accordance wi~h the provisions of this _)_ Act prior to the publication of such declaration." 18. Section 5 5 provides that land needed for the purpose of town c development scheme shall be deemed to be land needed for public purpose. Section 72 empowers the State Government to supervise and control the acts and proceedings of the officers appointed under Section 3 and the authorities constituted under the said Act. The State can issue directions in terms of Section 73 of the Act. Section 75 Section provides for delegation of powers. D Notifications : 19. On or about 13.02.1974, the State Government issued. a notification 'ti under sub-section (I) of Section 13 of the Act constituting Indore Planning Area, the limits whereof were defined in the schedule appended thereto. E Indisputably, it constituted only 37 villages. The villages Bicholi and Kanadia, with which we are concerned herein, were not included therein. 20. The State Government in exercise of power conferred upon it under Section 38 of the Act issued a notification establishing the Appellant-Authority, namely, 'Indore Vikas Pradhikaran' from 13.05.1977 in respect of the area F specified in the notification dated 13.02.1974 . ... ">- 21. On or about 30.03.1999, the State Government delegated its power under Sections 13 and 47A of the Act in favour of the District Planning Committee and it in exercise of said delegated power by a notification dated G 13.11.2000 amended the planning area by adding 115 villages therein which included the said villages Bicholi and Kanadia. By a notification dated 28.06.2002, it, however, further amended the extent of planning area by deleting - >:- 62 villages therefrom. Bicholi and Kanadia villages were, however, retained in the said amended notification. 22. Upon compliance of the usual statutory formalities, the appellant H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. A published a draft development plan on 27.06.2003. The said plan was in ..( respect of Urban Development Scheme No.164. Objections and suggestions in respect thereof were called for. Allegedly, objections and suggestions having been filed; they were heard by the Development Planning Committee during the period between 25.08.2003 and 03.09.2003. By a resolution adopted in a meeting held on 20.08.2004 a decision in anticipation of approval of the B Government under Section 50( I) of the Act was proposed, which included the lands of villages Bicholi and Kanadia, inter a/ia, for construction of a byepass road of 60 metres width. A declaration of intention to prepare a town development scheme in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 50 was issued on 24.08.2004. Indisputably, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Act, ,._ C the draft town development scheme was to be prepared within a period of two years therefrom. On or about 02.12.2004, Respondent applied for sanction of development plans under Section 29(1) of the Act. We may, however, notice that on 04.01.2005, the said draft development plans were returned by the State of Madhya Pradesh in terms of Section 19( 1) of the Act with a direction that the plans be prepared for the projected population as in the year 2021 D and the same be placed before the Government for approval as soon as possible. 23. The State of Madhya Pradesh, however, issued a notification in terms of sub-section (I) of Section 38 of the Act, inter alia, in respect of the E villages in question, namely, Bicholi and Kanadia only on 28.10.2005. Appellant issued a notification on 18.05.2006 inviting objections in respect of the said scheme. A Draft Development Plan-2021 was published on 13.07.2006. Contentions of the writ petitioner-respondents : F 24. Respondents' lands situated in villages Bicholi and Kanadia were within the respective jurisdictions of the Gram Panchayats constituted under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act. The said panchayats in terms of the provisions of the Act were 'local authorities'. They submitted applications for grant of building plan in the year 1990 and the same was sanctioned on or about 05.04.1991. G H 25. Respondent~, as noticed hereinbefore, applied for and obtained sanction in terms of the building bye-laws framed by the respective gram panchayats in 1991 for grant of development plans under Section 29(1) on 02.12.2004. The said applications were rejected by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning in view of the purported publication of the plan under . • CHAIR>.l"-t.;, ll'.:r>ORE VIKAS PRADHIKAR•N" PURE INDUSTRl!J_ COCK & CHEM, LID (S 8, SINHA, J } 81 J ~ ), sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act Respondents filed a writ petition A against the said order, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the said authority to sanction the site plan which had been submitted. Th~ said writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.05.2006. Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst. which have been allowed by the Division Bench of the High B Court by its judgment dated 06.03 .2007. High Court Judgment : ~ 26. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court struck down the declaration made under Section (2) of Section 50 of the Act, opining : c (i) Unless a development plan for an area is published and comes into operation, a draft development scheme cannot be published by the Town and Country Development Authority under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. (ii) Such a town development scheme cannot by itself without a D -' development plan for the area restrict the right of a person to use his property in the manner he likes. :f (iii) Although the notification issued by the Appellant-Authority had been constituted by the State Government only in respect of the area which was covered by the notification dated 13.02.1974, the draft E development scheme prepared by it was ultra vires, so far as the said two villages are concerned, being beyond its territorial jurisdiction. Submissions : 27. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, and Mr. S.K. Gambhir, learned Senior Counsel F - appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted : ,,., (i) The High Court committed a serious error in interpreting the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, inasmuch: (i) Under the Act an existing land use map has to be published which would G indicate broadly the land use proposed in the planning area and the areas or zones of land allocated for the purposes mentioned thereini an'd (ii) As the scheme covers the villages in question, ~> the same could not have beeri ignored. (u) Having regard to the fact that the scheme provides for construction of a bypass road of 70 feet width, any construction H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R. - A by the builders would lead to haphazard development and, thus. ...... would completely destroy the purpose for which the land was to be reserved for planned development of the residential area. (iii) Undertaking of haphazard and unplanned development would carry with it a statutory injunction provided for under Section B 53 of the Act, in terms whereof, if an existing land use map or a draft development plan or a town development scheme is published, no person is permitted to obtain any permission for carrying out any development contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith. .... c (iv) The materials on records established that a large number of permissions were obtained by the private developers which if allowed to be implemented shall result in haphazard development of colonies and buildings and, thus, defeat the purpose of the Act. D (v) As Section 50 is not subject to the publication of a final development plan, as would be evident from the words used therein, namely, 'at any time', Section 53 would operate as soon "" as an intention is expressed by issuance of a notification in terms thereof. E (vi) Section 50 of the Act must be read in the contrast with Section 20 thereof. So read, a town development scheme must be consistent with the provisions of the existing land use map as well as a draft development plan; as otherwise the purport and object for which Section 53 has been enacted would become otiose. F (vii) The Authority constituted under Section 38 being statutorily obligated to implement the development plan, as would appear - from Sections 38(2) and 49 of the Act, the power/duty to prevent ...... haphazard by declaring the town development scheme must be held to be vested in the Appellant-Authority. G (viii) The State of Madhya Pradesh having framed rules known as 'Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984', (Rules) which are parts of the town development scheme, keeping in view the fact that the scheme provided for I 0,000 houses for the low income -4 - group wherefor three major roads were required to be built up H having a width of75 metres, 60 metres and 36 metres respectively CHAIRMAN. INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN '· PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK & CHEM LTD. (SB SINHA I ) 8 J 5 ). as also parks. roads, colleges, gardens, playgrounds and green A belts, the purposes for which such scheme had been framed would not be subserved, if pennissions are granted for haphazard " and unplanned development. < (Ix) In any event, private interest must be waived to public interest. (x) The High Court committed a manifest error insofar it failed to B take into consideration that the planning area having been extended by a notification issued by the District Planning Committee, the same would subserve the purpose of the ~ notification dated 28.10.2005 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 8 of the Act. c 28. Mr. Banthia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State had not made any separate submission before us. 29. Mr. C.A. Sundaram and Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in these appeals, on the other hand, D would submit : .. (i) The land of the respondents being outside the planning area, as notified by the State of Madhya Pradesh constituting the ~ Appellant-Authority, the purported town development scheme would not be applicable in relation thereto.