Indore Development Authority ordered to release lands from town-planning schemes after earlier layout approvals

The Indore Development Authority (IDA) challenged revisional orders under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, which directed that several landowners’ lands be excluded from Town Development Schemes Nos. 169-A and 169-B.

The landowners relied on development or layout permissions granted before publication of the declarations initiating the schemes under Section 50(2).

The IDA argued, among other things, that Section 53 did not permit exclusion merely because a layout had been sanctioned and that development had to conform to the Master Plan under Section 25.

The petitions were heard together after the Division Bench restored them for decision on the merits.

1. Whether land covered by a development permission granted before publication of a town development scheme may be included in the scheme or is liable to be excluded under Section 53 of the Adhiniyam.

2. Whether the IDA’s challenge to the revisional orders disclosed a ground for interference under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.

Section 53 of the Adhiniyam restricts changes in land use and development after publication of a declaration to prepare a town development scheme, while preserving development authorised by the Director under the Act before that declaration.

Sections 50 and 51 govern preparation of a scheme and the Director’s revisional jurisdiction, respectively; Section 25 requires land use and development to conform to the development plan, subject to its stated provisos.

The Court considered Chairman, IDA v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemical Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705, and UDA v. Geeta Totla, W.P. No. 7732/2016, affirmed in W.A. Nos. 1480/2018 and 1481/2018, with the SLPs dismissed, concerning prior permissions and restrictions following a scheme declaration.

It also applied the supervisory, non-appellate limits of certiorari: interference is warranted for jurisdictional error, illegality, or a patent error of law, not merely to substitute another view on the merits.

The Court relied on Section 53’s saving for development authorised before publication of the scheme declaration and on earlier decisions concerning lands with prior permissions.

It also noted the IDA’s treatment of similarly situated lands and the limits of certiorari review.

The judgment, however, contains conflicting reasoning on whether a prior layout sanction alone suffices: it first reads Section 53 as protecting development covered by a prior sanction, but later states that an undeveloped, vacant parcel with a permission inconsistent with the Master Plan would not qualify for the saving.

Despite that tension, the Court’s operative conclusion was that no ground for writ interference had been made out.

It directed the IDA to take the necessary steps to release the lands from the schemes and implement the orders, preferably within four weeks.