Development permission cannot be revoked under Rule 25 without proof of misrepresentation or violation of material facts.

The petitioners, owners of 3.885 hectares of land in Village Khajrana, Indore, were granted development permission by Respondent No. 2 (Joint Director, Town & Country Planning) on 09.06.2023 under Section 30(1)(kha) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973.

This permission was based on a 2011 No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Indore Development Authority (IDA) stating the land was not part of any scheme.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 issued notices alleging the land was part of "Town Planning Scheme No. 77" and that petitioners misrepresented facts.

On 27.06.2024, Respondent No. 2 revoked the permission citing Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012.

Petitioners challenged this revocation, asserting the scheme had lapsed and no misrepresentation occurred.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Sections 31 and 32 of the 1973 Act.

2. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in revoking the development permission under Rule 25 of the 2012 Rules based on alleged misrepresentation regarding Scheme No. 77.

The court applied Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012, which empowers authorities to revoke permission only if it was obtained via false statements, misrepresentation, or violation of conditions.

The court relied on the precedent M/s Dwarka & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, holding that an alternative remedy is not a bar if the appellate authority is not validly constituted under the Act or if principles of natural justice are violated.

The court applied Section 50(1)(b) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh (Sanshodhan) Adhinyam, 2019, regarding the statutory lapsing of schemes where physical/financial progress is below the 10% threshold.

The court found the petition maintainable because the State failed to show an enabling provision in the 1973 Act to appoint a Divisional Commissioner as an appellate authority; moreover, the Commissioner’s role as IDA Chairman created a conflict of interest.

On the merits, the court held the revocation was illegal as there was no "reason to believe" a misrepresentation occurred.

Since the IDA itself issued an NOC in 2011, the petitioners were not required to disclose a defunct scheme.

The court noted the revocation order was passed "mechanically," citing a violation of "Condition 35" when only 32 conditions existed.

The court observed that Scheme No. 77 had statutorily lapsed under the 2019 Amendment, as expenditure was only 67.16 lakhs (below 10%), no land was acquired, and no compensation was paid.

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 27.06.2024, restored the development permission dated 09.06.2023, and directed Respondent No. 4 (Indore Municipal Corporation) to decide the petitioners' colony development application within eight weeks.