State Government must modify a town-development scheme for land excluded from acquisition under Section 5-A.

The petitioner claimed ownership of land at Village Hukmakhedi, Indore, comprising Survey Nos. 73/2, 74/1 and 72/1, measuring approximately 1.243 hectares.

The land was mentioned in Scheme No. 97, notified under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”). However, after objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were accepted, the land was excluded from the Section 6 declaration and was not included in the acquisition award or taken into possession.

The petitioner subsequently purchased the land, obtained diversion and development permissions, secured building permission from the Indore Municipal Corporation, and commenced construction.

The development permission was later suspended and revoked on the ground that the land had not been de-notified from Scheme No. 97.

The Indore Development Authority (“IDA”) repeatedly represented to the State Government that the land had not been acquired and proposed its release/de-notification.

By order dated 4 July 2025, the State rejected the proposal on the ground that the 1973 Act contained no provision for de-notification, while also directing an inquiry into the release of land from Scheme No. 97.

Whether the State Government’s order dated 4 July 2025, rejecting the proposal on the ground that the 1973 Act contains no provision for de-notification, was legally sustainable in view of Section 52 of the 1973 Act.

Whether the State Government could be directed to modify Scheme No. 97 in respect of the petitioner’s land, which had been excluded from acquisition after acceptance of objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the development and building permissions previously granted in respect of the land.

The Court primarily applied Section 52(1)(b) and (c) of the 1973 Act, which empowers the State Government, in the public interest, to direct the modification or revocation of a town development scheme, subject to giving the Authority an opportunity to present its case.

Section 54, which concerns the lapse of a scheme for failure to commence or complete implementation within the prescribed period, was treated as distinct from the power of modification or revocation under Section 52.

The Court also considered Sections 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which objections are considered before a declaration that land is required for a public purpose is issued.

On the scope of judicial review under Article 226, the Court relied on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai , including the principles that certiorari lies for jurisdictional errors, breach of natural justice, and patent errors of law apparent on the face of the record.

The Court also referred to Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit , Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2022, concerning Scheme No. 97 and the legal effect of release of land from that scheme.

The Court found that the State’s conclusion that there was no statutory mechanism for de-notification failed to account for the broad power of modification under Section 52 of the 1973 Act.

The IDA itself had resolved to release the petitioner’s land and had forwarded proposals to the State Government for that purpose.

The Court further noted that the petitioner’s land had been excluded from acquisition after the Section 5-A process, had not been included in the Section 6 declaration, and had not been the subject of an award or possession proceedings.

In those circumstances, continued treatment of the land as subject to Scheme No. 97, coupled with the refusal to consider modification solely because the statute did not use the expression “de-notification,” was held to be legally unsustainable.

The State’s direction for an inquiry did not cure the fundamental error in rejecting the proposal on that premise.

Applying its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court concluded that the State ought to have exercised, or at least properly considered exercising, its power under Section 52 to modify the scheme in respect of the petitioner’s land.

The State Government’s order dated 4 July 2025 was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioner’s land bearing Survey Nos. 72/2/2, 73/2, 74/1 and 72/1, measuring 1.401 hectares at Village Hukmakhedi, Indore.

The State Government was directed to modify Scheme No. 97 in respect of the subject land under Section 52 of the 1973 Act.

It was further directed to restore the development permission dated 4 January 2020.

The petitioner was permitted to continue development in accordance with that permission and the building permission dated 15 October 2020 issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation.