REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4920 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28905 of 2008]

Binabai Bhate                                             …. Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.          ...Respondents     

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  

29.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in  

Writ Appeal No. 1063 of 2003, whereby the High Court dismissed the said  

Page 1 of 12

appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 16.04.2003  

passed  by  the  Single  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  at  

Jabalpur.

3. The  appellant  is  Bhuswami  of  certain  lands  situated  at  Tehsil  

Khandwa, District East Nimar, Madhya Pradesh. A draft development plan  

was  published  under  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Nagar  Tatha  Gram  Nivesh  

Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereafter referred to as “The Act”). The apellant came to  

know that the draft  development plan included some portion of her land  

with the intention of making it available for Navchandi Mela. However, the  

land was ancestral and he appellant intended to transfer it by a will duly  

registered and already executed.  

4. The Appellant submitted objections on 24.03.2000 and a committee  

was constituted consisting of Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative  

Assembly, Mayor, President Zila Panchayat, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat and  

Collector.  The  committee  considered  the  objections  and decided that  the  

land was not required and the objections of the appellant and others were  

accepted stating that the land in question was not required. Accordingly, a  

Page 2 of 12

resolution dated 26.05.2000 was passed by the committee in favour of the  

Appellant.

5. In spite of the resolution passed by the committee, by a notification  

dated 28.02.2001 published in Madhya Pradesh Raj  Patra,  the Appellant  

came  to  know  that  the  State  Government  had  included  certain  lands  

belonging to the appellant in the modified development plan. The Appellant  

filed  review  Petition  under  section  23(A)  of  the  Act  before  the  State  

Government  which  was  rejected  by  order  dated  24.07.2002  stating  that  

there is no provision for review of the order in the Act.  

6. The Appellant thereafter,  filed Writ Petition in the High Court which  

was  dismissed  by  the  Learned  Single  Judge  by  order  dated  16.04.2003.  

Since the Letter Patent jurisdiction was abolished, the appellant filed Special  

Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the Special  

Leave Petition the provision of Letter Patent jurisdiction was revived. The  

Special Leave Petition was allowed to be withdrawn for filing Letters Patent  

Appeal in the High Court.  

Page 3 of 12

7. The Appellant filed Writ Appeal before the High Court of Judicature,  

Jabalpur which was dismissed by order dated 29.08.08. The present appeal,  

as stated hereinbefore, is directed against the aforesaid order passed by the  

High Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that after  

passing  of  the  Resolution  by  the  Committee  constituted  accepting  the  

objections/suggestions  of  the  appellant,  the  said  resolution  of  the  

Committee should have been accepted by the Government as the same  

was  binding,  but  instead  the  State  Government  without  providing  any  

opportunity of hearing to the appellant rejected the said recommendation  

of the committee and proceeded to acquire the land without giving any  

opportunity of hearing and thus the said action of the State Government  

is in violation of the principles of natural justice.     

9. It  was  also  submitted  that  the  entire  acquisition  process  was  in  

colourable exercise of power and not for any public purpose and that it  

was done for extraneous consideration.    It was also submitted by the  

learned counsel  appearing for  the  appellant  that  the  appellant  had all  

Page 4 of 12

along been assured that the land belonging to her will not be used for or  

utilised by the State Government for the purpose of holding a Mela and  

therefore, the acquisition of the said land came as a complete surprise to  

the appellant.

10. It  was  also  submitted  that  as  per  the  report  of  the  Committee  

constituted of Member of Parliament,  Members of Legislative Assembly,  

Mayor,  President  of  Zila  Panchayat,  Sarpanch  Gram  Panchayat  and  

Collector, the land, in question was not required and the objections of the  

appellant having been accepted there was no requirement of the land in  

question and therefore the action taken is a colourable exercise of power.  

It was also submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in  

interpreting the provisions of Section 23 of the Act and in holding that  

there was no provision given under the Act for review of orders.

11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent  

submitted that the resolution passed by the aforesaid committee was not  

final and was only of recommendatory nature and that it was open for the  

State Government to take its own decision considering the facts of each  

Page 5 of 12

case. It was also submitted that there was no violation of the principles of  

natural justice and that the appellant was provided sufficient opportunity  

of hearing.

12. It was also stated that the appellant would be paid compensation as  

and when the land is acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Khandwa,  

and therefore, at the present moment, the possession of the land is with  

the appellant.   It was also submitted that the decision is  bona fide and  

was taken in accordance with law.    

13. Before the High Court also similar submissions were made by the  

appellant.  In its order dated 16.4.2003 the High Court rejected the said  

submissions holding that they are without any merit.   The High Court  

held  that  as  per  the  scheme  of  Sections  17  and  18  of  the  Act,  the  

recommendation of  the Committee  is  not  final,  binding and conclusive  

and therefore it was open for the State to take its own final decision in  

accordance with law.  It was also held by the High Court that a review of  

the order of the nature which was filed by the appellant before the High  

Court was not maintainable in terms of the provisions of Section 23A of  

the Act.

Page 6 of 12

14.   In the order passed in the writ  appeal  dated 29.08.2008, the High  

Court while upholding its order dated 16.04.2003 observed that the State  

Government did not accept the recommendations made by the Committee,  

therefore it was not necessary for the State to issue a modified plan. For the  

final plan, the State Government did issue the plan, as per section 19(2) and  

had invited objections form the  persons who are  likely  to  be affected by  

inclusion of their land.  The Court also observed that if the appellant was of  

the  opinion  that  certain  documents  had  been  kept  back  by  the  State  

Government, then he could have always asked the learned Single Judge to  

issue  directions  to  the  State  Government  for  the  production  of  said  

documents. For failure to call for such documents, it cannot be held that the  

State Government accepted the recommendations made by the Committee,  

did not include the land in the final plan and all of a sudden issued the final  

plan against the interest of the appellant.

15. In  the  light  of  the  submissions  made  by  the  counsel  appearing  

parties, we have minutely perused the records as also the orders passed  

by the High Court.   On a careful reading of the provisions of Section 17A,  

Section 18 and Section 19 of the Act,  we become aware regarding the  

Page 7 of 12

procedure and the scheme provided for publication of a draft development  

plan and also for approval and preparation of the final development plan.

16. Sub-section (2) of Section 17A of the Act makes it crystal clear that  

the  Committee  has  the  power  to  consider  the  draft  development  plan  

prepared by  the  Director  under  Section  14.   It  also  has  the  power  to  

suggest modifications and alterations in the aforesaid draft development  

plan  prepared.  The  Committee  has  also  been  empowered  to  hear  

objections after publication of the draft development plan under Section  

18 and suggest modifications or alterations, if any, to the Director.  It is,  

therefore, clearly established that the aforesaid decision and resolution of  

the Committee is only suggestion and recommendation which is required  

to be taken notice of by the State Government.  Once, the development  

plan is submitted on completion of the procedure and process prescribed  

under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act, the State Government is empowered  

under Section 19 of the Act either to approve the development plan or to  

approve the same with some modifications as it may consider necessary.  

A further  power  is  also vested on the  State Government to return the  

same to the Director to modify the same or to prepare a fresh plan in  

Page 8 of 12

accordance  with  such  directions  as  the  State  Government  may  deem  

appropriate.

17. In the present case, the development plan as prepared under Section  

14 was approved by the State Government without any modification and  

therefore there was no question of inviting any further suggestions as no  

modification was suggested to the said development plan.   In view of the  

said position also,  there  was no question  of  giving any hearing  to the  

appellant in the present case, and therefore the issue raised with regard  

to  alleged  violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  justice  is  without  any  

merit.

18. The aforesaid provisions namely Section 17, 18 and 19 of the Act  

give a broad scheme laying down the procedure as to how a development  

plan is to be approved by the State Government as also the procedure as  

to when it becomes final and operational.  The aforesaid scheme of the  

provisions clearly states that a recommendation of the Committee is only  

recommendatory and advisory in nature and such recommendations of  

the Committee are required to be considered by the State Government,  

but the absolute and final power is rested on the State Government to  

Page 9 of 12

approve or reject the draft development plan or to approve the same with  

some modifications as it may deem appropriate.

19. The  resolutions  passed  by  the  Committee  cannot  be  said  to  be  

absolute, final and binding and the State Government possesses the final  

authority in the matter of giving approval to the development plan.   In  

any case, in the present case, the State Government approved the draft  

plan without any modification and therefore provisions of sub-sections (2)  

and (3) of Section 19 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of  

the present case.   Despite the said legal provision, the State Government  

in the present case has issued a final plan and also invited objections  

from the persons who are likely to be affected by inclusion of their land.  

Even thereafter the appellant did not submit any objection and therefore  

the question of  giving a hearing to the appellant  at that stage did not  

arise.   So  from  whatever  angle  the  contentions  of  the  appellant  are  

examined, the same are not found to be worthy of acceptance.

20. So far the power of review is concerned, the High Court does not  

have the power of review as such power of review has to be specifically  

provided for in the Act.  A power of review against an order passed is a  

Page 10 of 12

creature of the statute and since no such power of review is provided for  

under the provisions of the Act, the High Court was justified in holding  

that there could be no review to the order passed.   So far the review and  

modifications of the development plan or adjoining plan as provided in  

Section 23 and 23A of the Act are concerned, the said provisions are not  

applicable in the present case for the State Government has not made any  

modification  in  the  development  plan,  and  therefore,  the  contentions  

appearing for the appellant are held to be without any merit.  Besides, the  

said power  is  exclusively  vested with the  State Government and in an  

appropriate case,  the State Government is empowered to exercise such  

power as and when deem proper.   This is  not a case where the State  

Government thought it fit to invoke such power.

21. We,  therefore,  find no error  in  the  judgment  passed by  the  High  

Court.  The  impugned  order  does  not  suffer  from  any  infirmity.   The  

present appeal is, therefore, dismissed as without any merit.   However,  

there shall be no order as to costs.

                          ............................................J

Page 11 of 12

                 [ Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

  ............................................J           [ Anil R. Dave ]

New Delhi, July 4, 2011.

Page 12 of 12