http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/03/2000

BENCH: A.P.Misra, M.B.Shah

JUDGMENT:

     MISRA, J.

     The appellant raises the question of interpretation of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the M.P.  Town and Country  Development  Act, 1973, (for short the Act)  read with  Rule  18  of the M.P.  Town  and  Country  Development Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules).

     This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  25.8.1988  of the High Court, which allowed the  writ petition  of  the  respondent no.1, by  quashing  the  draft scheme  for  the  development  in respect  of  some  of  the villages  including Shankar Nagar of Raipur, to which we are concerned, published under Section 50 (3) of the Act in M.P. Gazette  dated  4.9.1987/11.9.1987  and by  holding  in  his favour  deemed permission under Section 30(5) of the Act  to develop its land.

     We  now hereby give some of the bare factual matrix to appreciate  the controversies in this appeal.  The appellant is a statutory authority under the Act.  The respondent no.1 is  a Cooperative Housing Society registered under the  M.P. Cooperative  Housing Act, 1960.  The aforesaid 1973 Act  has been  enacted  to make provisions for planning,  development and  use  of  land for proper development, with  a  view  to ensure that town planning schemes are made effectively under Chapter  IV  of  the  Act.   The  State  Government  through notification  constitutes  planning  areas and  defines  its limit.   Section  14  enjoins  the  Director  to  prepare  a development  plan.   Such development plan is sanctioned  by the  State  Government,  which  for   the  Raipur  city  was sanctioned  on  or before 9.9.1976.  Chapter VI  deals  with control, development and use of land.  Under Section 24, the overall  control,  development and use of land vests in  the State  Government subject to the rules framed under the Act. Section 25 enjoins, the use and development of the land must conform  to  the  provisions of the  sanctioned  development plan,  Section 26 prohibits development of any land  without the  permission  in  writing of the  Director.   Section  27 refers  to  the development undertaken by the Union  or  the State  Government.   Section  28 refers to  the  development undertaken  by  a  local body or any  authority  constituted under the Act, while Section 29 refers to the development of the  land  by  any other person.  Section  30  empowers  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Director  to grant permission conditionally, unconditionally or refuse permission while sub-section (5) refers to a case, where  the authority fails to communicate his order on ones application  under Section 29 for development within 60 days of  its making, then permission would be deemed to have been granted  after  expiring of the said period.  Under  Section 50(1),  the  Town and Country Development Authority may,  at any   time,  declare  its  intention   to  prepare  a   town development scheme which may be published within thirty days thereafter  under  sub- section (2).  Under sub-section  (3) the  draft scheme is to be published within two years of the publication  under  sub-section  (2), in the  form  and  the manner  as  prescribed under Rule 18 and within 30  days  of this  publication, objections and suggestions could be filed before  the  concerned  authority who has  to  consider  and decide the same and make if any consequential modifications. From  the date of the final publication of the scheme  under sub-section  (7),  restrictions are imposed for the use  and development  of the land by virtue of Section 53, which  has to  be only in accordance with the development authorised by the Director under Section 54.

     Respondents case in the writ petition before the High Court  was  that its society provides for its  members,  who belong  to  economically  weaker   section,  plots  for  the construction   of   houses.   It   purchased  25  acres   of agricultural land in Shankar Nagar, Circle No.1, in the year 1985-86.   This  was purchased, since the  State  Government through  its  policy  decision dated 30.10.1981  decided  to encourage  housing societies to construct houses in towns of over  two  lacs  of population.  It stipulated, 25%  of  the available  land was to be given to the housing societies for construction  of  houses and in case government lands  falls short  of  this, it may acquire any land for the  societies. On  the  other  hand,  according  to  respondent  no.1,  the appellant  published its intention to prepare a  development scheme   under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section   50   through notification  in the M.P.  Gazette dated 30.3.1985 including the  village Shankar Nagar, Raipur.  Respondent no.1  during this  period  applied  on 2.6.1986 to respondent  no.2,  the Regional  Joint Director for permission to develop its  land under  Section  29 and stated that necessary fees  shall  be deposited,  after  permission  is  given.   Respondent  no.1 through  another  application  applied   for  no   objection certificate  to respondent no.3 on 1.1.1987.  On it an order dated  16.11.1987 was passed that no such certificate  could be  issued,  as  draft development scheme has  already  been published.   With  reference to the first application  dated 2.6.1986,  respondents  case is, since respondent no.2  did not  communicate  any  of his decision  either  granting  or refusing  the  permission, hence after 60 days of  the  said application,  it matured into deemed permission by virtue of sub- section (5) of Section 30.  Next challenge to the draft scheme  is  that it was not published within two years  from the date of publication under sub- section (2) of Section 30 viz.,  from 30.3.1985 in term of sub-section (3) of  Section 50  hence  the same is non est and inoperative.  It is  also submitted  that Rule 18(2) requires publication of the draft scheme  under sub-section (3) of Section 50, in the  gazette and  in  one or more local paper which means publication  in both,  i.e.,  in  the gazette and the newspaper  has  to  be simultaneously  within  a  period  of   two  years  and  the publication  in  the newspaper was only made  admittedly  on 7.11.1987 which itself is more than two months from the date of  publication  under sub-section (3) of Section 50 in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

gazette.   Thus  for  all  these reasons  the  draft  scheme published  is  invalid and inoperative.  Aggrieved by  order dated  20.11.1987  passed  by the Joint Director,  town  and country  planning,  refusing permission for development  and order  dated  1.11.1987 issued by Chief  Executive  Officer, Raipur  Development Authority refusing to issue no objection certificate,  the respondent No.  1 filed the aforesaid writ petition which is allowed by the impugned order by which the aforesaid  draft  scheme  of  the appellant  in  respect  of village  Shankar Nagar of Raipur was quashed.  It also  held that  respondents application dated 2.6.1986, after  expiry of  60 days, in the absence of any order qualified as deemed permission  under sub-section (5) of Section 30 of the  Act. Aggrieved  by  this  the appellant have  filed  the  present appeal.

     The  first  contention  raised for the  appellant  is, whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of  sub-section  (5) of Section 30 of the Act, could  it  be said  it  to be a case of deemed permission.  For the  ready reference Section 30 is quoted hereunder:-

     30.   Grant or refusal of permission  (1) On receipt of an application under Section 29 the Director may, subject to the provisions of this Act, by order in writing

     (a) grant the permission unconditionally;

     (b)  grant the permission, subject to such conditions, as may be deemed necessary under the circumstances;

     (c) refuse the permission.

     (2)  Every  order  granting   permission  subject   to conditions,  or refusing permission shall state the  grounds for imposing such conditions or for such refusal.

     (3)  Any permission granted under sub-section (2) with or  without  conditions  shall be in such manner as  may  be prescribed.

     (4)  Every  order  under   sub-section  (2)  shall  be communicated  to  the  applicant in such manner  as  may  be prescribed.

     (5)  If the Director does not communicate his decision whether  to  grant  or refuse to  the  permission  applicant within  [sixty  days]  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  his application,  such  permission shall be deemed to have  been granted  to the applicant on the date immediately  following the date of expiry of [sixty days];

     Provided  that in computing the period of [sixty days] the period in between the date of requisitioning any further information  or  documents from the applicant and  the  date receipt  of such information or documents form the applicant shall be excluded.

     Under  sub-section  (5),  if  the  Director  does  not communicate  his decision either granting unconditionally or conditionally or refusing the permission then within 60 days from  the  date  of  the receipt of  such  application,  the permission  would  be  deemed  to have  been  granted.   But

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

significantly proviso to it extends this period by excluding the  period during which any further information or document is  requisitioned  from  the applicant to the  date  of  its receipt.   It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 applied for  the  development  of  the  land  under  Section  29  on 2.6.1986.   The 60 days expires on 2.8.1986.  The respondent case  is till this date the Director has neither refused nor granted the permission hence it would be deemed to have been granted.   On  the other hand, appellant strongly relies  on the five communications send by the Joint Director, town and country  planning,  to  respondent   no.1  seeking   certain informations with regard to the development permission which was  not  forthcoming,  for  this reason, the  case  of  the respondent  was  closed, which is evidenced from the  letter dated  6.10.1986.  Thus question of deemed permission  would not  arise in view of the said proviso.  This letter  refers to  the  said five earlier communications,  namely,  letters dated   18.6.1986,   1.7.1986,   21.7.1986,  31.7.1986   and 9.9.1986.  The letter records:

     Refer  to  the  above letters with reference  to  the above  subject.  The information asked from you is still not received.  Therefore the case is closed and filed.

     Thus  for full more than four months, since making  of the said application the information was not forthcoming.

     The  contents  of this letter clearly reveal that  the case  of  the respondent no.1 was ordered to be  closed  and filed.   This  letter reveals that period of sixty days  has not  come  to  an  end,  in view  of  the  said  proviso  as information  was  not  sent as asked for.   So  question  of deemed   permission  would  not   arise.   Then  further  it constitutes  to  be a case of rejection of its  application. This letter was communicated to respondent no.1.  He did not file  any appeal or revision as contemplated under  Sections 31  and  32 of the said Act.  Thus we have no hesitation  to hold  that  the High Court committed error in recording  the finding that it is a case of deemed permission.

     Next  submission  on behalf of the respondent is  that the draft scheme was not published within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under sub-section (2) of  Section  50.   Submission  is  that  declaration   under sub-section  (2)  was  published  on  30.3.1985,  hence  the publication under sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the draft scheme  made on 4.9.1987 is beyond the period of two  years. On  the  other  hand  the  case of  the  appellant  is  that publication  under sub-section (2) was made on 6.9.1985  and since  the draft scheme under sub-section (3) of Section  50 was  published  in the gazette on 4.9.1987 it is within  the period of two years, hence no violation.

     Section  50 and its sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)  are quoted hereunder:-

      50.  Preparation of town development schemes.   (1) The Town and Country Development Authority may, at any time, declare its intention to prepare a town development scheme.

     (2)  Not later than thirty days from the date of  such declaration  of  intention  to make a scheme, the  Town  and Country  Development Authority shall publish the declaration in  the  Gazette  and  in  such   other  manner  as  may  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

prescribed.

     (3)  Not  later  than  two  years  from  the  date  of publication  of  the declaration under sub-section  (2)  the Town  and Country Development Authority shall prepare a town development scheme in draft form and publish it in such form and  manner  as  may be prescribed together  with  a  notice inviting  objections  and suggestions from any  person  with respect  to  the said draft development scheme  before  such date  as  may  be  specified therein, such  date  being  not earlier  than  thirty days from the date of  publication  of such notice.

     It  is  not disputed that there are  two  publications under  sub-section  (2) in the M.P.  Gazette, one  is  dated 30.3.1985  and  the  other  is  dated  6.9.1985.   Both  the aforesaid   gazette  publications  record   intent  of   the appellant   to  prepare  town   development   scheme   under sub-section  (2) of Section 50.  It is not revealed from the records  as  to why two such publications were made for  the same  purpose on two different dates.  Still on these  facts question  that  arises for our consideration is, as to  what would  be the starting point for computing the period of two years.  In our considered opinion, it would not have any ill consequential  effect  on the appellants, on account of  two such  publication.   Any intention even if  published  under sub-  section (2) of Section 50 if it is made to lapse,  not proceeded  with for any reason and for some reasons  another such  publication  is  made, in the absence of  any  embargo under the Act or Rules to which we have not been pointed, it would not invalidate this second such publication.  In other words,  even  if after publication of the  first  intention, either  it  is given a go-by or otherwise on rethinking,  if another  such  intention  is published it would be  a  valid notice  when it is published under sub-section (2).  If that be  so, the period of limitation would start from the  later such publication.  In the present case it would be 6.9.1985. If  appellants  were  persuing  its  draft  scheme  only  in pursuance to the publication made on 30.3.1985, the question of   limitation  would  have   gained  relevant  and   valid consideration  but  when  it published another  such  intend subsequently,  the  period  has  to   be  from  this   later publication.   Admittedly the publication under  sub-section (3)  of  Section  50 was made on 4.9.1987  which  is  within period  of two years from the date of the publication  dated 6.9.1985  under  sub-section  (2).  Thus  the  draft  scheme cannot be held to be invalid on this score.

     Next  it  is  submitted that period of  two  years  as required  by Section 50 sub-section (3) is a period  between the  date of publication under sub-section (2) and the  date of  publication  under sub-section (3) and it has to  be  in such  form  and manner as prescribed under the rules.   Rule 18(2)  prescribe the form which requires publication in  the M.P.   Gazette and one or more local Hindi newspaper.   Thus publication  would be complete only when publication both in the  gazette and newspaper is made and since the publication in  the  newspaper was made more than two months  after  the date  of publication in the gazette as aforesaid, not  being published   within  two  years,  it   is  contrary  to   the requirement  of the rules.  It could be valid only, if  both the publications in the gazette and local newspaper are made simultaneously.   The High Court upheld this contention  and held  draft  scheme  to be invalid on this score.   We  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

considered  the finding of the High Court and the submission of  learned counsel for the respondent.  To appreciate  this Rule 18 (1) and (2) is quoted hereunder:-

     Rule  18.- Preparation of Town Development Schemes. (1) The Town and Country Development Authority shall publish a  notice under sub-section (2) of Section 50 inn Form  XIII declaring  the intention of making a town development scheme in  the  Gazette and by means of an advertisement in one  or more  local  Hindi newspaper.  Copies thereof shall also  be available  for  inspection  in the office of  the  Town  and Country  Development Authority and Regional Offices of  Town and Country Planning Department concerned.

     (2)  Not  later  than  two  years  from  the  date  of publication  of  the declaration in the form of  the  notice referred to in sub-rule (1) the Town and Country Development Authority  shall  publish a public notice under  sub-section (3)  of  Section  50  in Form XIV  in  the  Madhya  Pradesh Rajpatra  and in one or more local Hindi newspaper to  give due  publicity  intimating that the draft  town  development scheme  has been prepared and is available for inspection in the  Office of the Town & Country Development Authority  and regional  office  of  Town and Country  Planning  Department concerned  during  office  hours   inviting  objections  and suggestions  with respect to the said draft within a  period of thirty days from the date of publication of such notice.

     Rule  18  prescribes  the  form  and  manner  of  such publication.   Sub-rule  (1)  refers to the  publication  of notice  under  sub-section (2) of Section 50 to be  in  Form XIII  of the intention of making a town development  scheme. Sub-  rule (2) refers to the publication of notice of  draft scheme  contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 50  to be  in  Form  XIV.   This  further  records,  it  should  be published  in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette and in one or  more local  Hindi newspaper to give due publicity that the  draft town  development scheme has been prepared and is  available for  inspection  in  the  office of  the  Town  and  Country Development  Authority, inviting objections and  suggestions with  respect  to the said draft.  If we read  in  coherence both  Section  50 sub-section (3) and sub-section  (2)  with Rule 18, the limitation of two years starts from the date of the  publication under sub-section (2) of Section 50 in Form XIII  and  ends with the publication of draft  scheme  under sub-section  (3)  of  Section  50 in Form XIV,  when  it  is published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette.  The publication in one or  more local Hindi newspaper as stated in sub-rule (2)  of Rule  18 is to give due publicity to the public at large  so that  they  may file their objections to the  draft  scheme. Though  publication in Gazette is also notice to the  public at  large  it is always open for the legislature, as in  the present  case, to give extra publicity to the public through the  publication  in any local daily.  In fact, Rule 2  with respect to the publication in the Hindi newspaper records:

     and in one or more local Hindi newspaper to give due publicity  intimating that the draft town development scheme has  been  prepared  and  is  available  for  inspection.. {Emphasis supplied}

     However,  for  computing the period of two years,  the moment  it is published in the official gazette it is to  be taken to be the date of publication under sub-section (3) of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Section  50.  As we have said, further publication in one or more  local Hindi newspaper is required only for giving  due publicity, for making larger section of people aware of such a scheme.

     Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 requires:

     Not later than two years from the date of publication of  the declaration in the form of the notice referred to in sub-rule  (1)  the  Town and Country  Development  Authority shall  publish  a  public notice under  sub-section  (3)  of Section  50  in  Form  XIV in the  Madhya  Pradesh  Rajpatra (Madhya Pradesh Govt.  Gazette)..

     Thus,  when the publication in form XIV in the  Madhya Pradesh  Gazette  is  made, the compliance of the  form  and procedure  of this Rule is complete.  So if this publication is   made  within  two  years   of  the  publication   under sub-section  (2)  of  Section  50, no  invalidity  could  be attributable to any scheme under it.  In view of this, it is not  necessary  to  go into another question,  whether  this compliance  is mandatory or directory.  The submission  that for  computing  period  of  two   years  the  compliance  of publication  would only be completed if it is also published simultaneously  in the local newspaper has no merit.   There are two parts of sub-rule (2) of Rule 18.  The first part we have quoted above and the second part which is disjoint with the  word  and  is for another purpose,  which  is  quoted hereunder:   ..and in one or more local Hindi newspaper to give  due  publicity  intimating  that the  draft  Town  and Country   Development  Scheme  has   been  prepared  and  is available   for    inspection.inviting    objections   and suggestions.within  a  period  of   thirty  days  of  the publication of such notice.

     The later part of this rule confers a right on persons to  file objection or give suggestion to the published draft scheme.   So  for counting the period of thirty days, it  is the date when the draft scheme is published in the newspaper is to be taken as the date of the starting point.

     Whenever  there are two possible interpretations,  the one which subserve to the intend of the legislature is to be accepted.   The  object of the aforesaid Act is for  planned development  and thus the interpretation, which upholds  any such  scheme should be followed.  Heydons principle is  now well recognised in interpreting any enactment.  It lays down that  courts must see, (a) what was the law before making of the  Act;  (b) what was the mischief or defect for which the law  did  not provide;  (c) what is the remedy that the  Act has  provided;   (d) what is the reason of the  remedy.   It states  that  courts  must  adopt  that  construction  which suppresses  the mischief and advances the remedy.  This  has been  approved by this count in number of decisions.  One of them  is  K.P.  Varghese Vs.  Income-tax Officer,  Ernakulam and Anr., 1981 (4) SCC 173.

     The  remedy  that  aforesaid Act has provided  is  for smooth  and fast development of the areas brought under  the Act through development schemes.  We find the interpretation given  by the High Court which not only impedes  advancement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

of  this  remedy but is contrary to the provisions  of  this Act.   So, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court committed  an error in holding that publication in the  M.P. Gazette and local newspaper must be simultaneously.

     For all the aforesaid reasons we have no hesitation to hold,  simultaneous publication both in the gazette and  any local  Hindi newspaper even if not made would not invalidate the draft scheme.

     Next  submission is publication under sub-section  (2) of  Section  50  has to be within 30 days from the  date  of declaration of the intention to prepare a development scheme under sub-section (1).  In other words, submission is unless publication  under  sub-section (2) is made within  30  days from  the  date  of declaration under sub-section  (1),  the draft  scheme must fall as this has not been done.  Firstly, we  do  not  find  any such material on record  as  to  when declaration  of intention to make such draft scheme was made nor  we  find  any such submission made by  respondent  no.1 before  the High Court in the writ petition.  Thus it has no merit and hence rejected.

     Lastly   it   is  submitted   that   respondent   no.1 application dated 1.1.1987 to the Chief Executive Officer of the  appellant for the grant of no objection certificate was rejected  on  16.11.1987  by  him  and  also  by  the  Joint Director,  Town  and  Country Planning through  order  dated 20.11.1987  are  liable  to  be set aside, as  there  is  no provision  under  the  Act or the Rules, requiring  such  no objection  certificate.  This is misconceived which we shall be referring hereinafter.  It seems respondent no.1 made two applications  for the development.  First is on 2.6.1986 and the second is, as aforesaid, dated 1.1.1987.

     So  far  the 1st application dated 2.6.1986,  we  have already  recorded  that there is no deemed permission  under sub-section  (5)  of  Section 30.  In  fact,  proceeding  in pursuance  to  the same was closed for the lack of  response from  the respondent in respect of information sought.   The second   application   is  dated   1.1.1987  in  which   the respondent-society  states about purchasing certain lands in villages  and  this  society  itself seeks  issuance  of  no objection  certificate  from  the appellant.   However,  the Chief Executive Officer rejected this through an order dated 16.11.1987  as the land in question which is situate in, the village  Shankar  Nagar,  in  which   a  draft  scheme,   as aforesaid,  has  already been published.  Admittedly when  a draft  scheme is published a sanction could only be in terms of  the  said scheme and no independent development plan  in contradiction  of the same could be sanctioned.   Similarly, through  letter/order  dated 20.11.1987 the Joint  Director, Town  and  Country  Planning  also   did  not  approve   the application  of respondent no.1 as applied area comes  under the residential scheme of Raipur Development Authority which has  already been published in the gazette.  We do not  find any  illegality  in  the  said   two  orders.   This  apart, respondent  no.1,  if  aggrieved,  had a  remedy  either  by preferring an appeal or revision against it under Section 31 or  32  of  the  Act.   Even   otherwise,  we  feel  if  any development   scheme  is  published   either  by  the  Union Government,   State  Government  or   local  authority   any application  by any person under Section 29 for  development cannot  have  its way in contradiction to such scheme.   The scheme  was  framed in the year 1985, because of  this  long

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

litigation  delay  is being caused in implementing the  same with  full  force.  The courts should normally refrain  from interfering  with  the same, unless it is violative  of  the Act, rule or any constitutional provisions.

     For  all the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in  this appeal  and  hold  that the High Court  committed  error  in quashing  the  draft scheme and allowing the application  of respondent  no.1.  Thus we allow the present appeal and  set aside  the judgment and order dated 25.8.1988 passed by  the High Court.  Costs on the parties.