BINABAI BHATEversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

                     [2011] 7 S.C.R. 31

                       BINABAI BHATE                               A
                               v.
        STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 4920 of 2011)

                        JULY 04, 2011
                                                                   B
           [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                  ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

     Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,
 1973 - ss. 17, 18, 19 and 23(A) - Publication of draft            C
development plan which included some portion of appellant's
land - Appellant filed objections - Resolution passed by the
Committee in favour of the appellant - However, State
Government included certain lands belonging to the appellant
in the modified development plan - Review petition filed by        D
the appellant uls. 23(A) before the State Government rejected
- Writ petition as also writ appeal dismissed - On appeal, held:
Resolutions passed by. the Committee cannot be said to be
absolute, final and binding - State Government possesses
the final authority in the matter of giving approval to the        E
development plan - On facts, development plan was approved
by the State Government without any modification and
therefore, there was no question of inviting any further
suggestions or giving any hearing to the appellant - There
was no violation of the principles of natural justice - State      F
Government issued a final plan and also invited objections
from the persons who are likely to be affected by inclusion of
their land to which the appellant did not submit any objection,
therefore, the question of giving a hearing to the appellant at
that stage ·did not arise - High Court was justified in holding    G
that there could be no review to the order passed since no
power of review is provided for under the provisions of the Act
- Also, ss. 23 and 23A providing for review and modifications
of the development plan or adjoining plan not applicable in
the instant case since State Government has not made any
                                31                                 H
    32       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 7 S.C.R.


A modification in the development plan - Thus, order passed
    by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

       Some portion of appellant's land was included in the
  draft development plan published under the Madhya
B Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, for
  the purpose of holding a Mela. The appellant submitted
  objections. The Committee decided that the appellant's
  land was not required and passed a resolution in favour
  of the appellant. However, by a Notification, the appellant
C came to know that the State Government had included
  certain lands belonging to the appellant in the modified
  development plan. The appellant filed areview petition
  under Section 23(A) of the Act before the State
  Government and the same was rejected stating that there
  is no provision for review of the order in the Act. The
0 appellant then filed a writ petition and the same was
  dismissed. Thereafter, writ appeal was also dismissed by
  the High Court. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant
  appeal.
E        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Madhya
  Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 give
  a broad scheme laying down the procedure as to how a
F development plan is to be approved by the State
  Government as also the procedure as to when It becomes
  final and operational. The said 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
G considered by the State Government, but the absolute
  and final power is rested on the State Government to
  approve or reject the draft development plan or to
  approve the same with some modifications as it may
  deem appropriate. The resolutions passed by the
H Committee cannot be said to be absolute, final and
 BINABAI BHATE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH               33
                  AND ORS.
binding and the State Government possesses the final         A
authority in the matter of giving approval to the
development plan. [Paras 18 and 19] [39-C-G]
     1.2 In the instant case, the development plan as
prepared under Section 14 was approved by the State 8
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. There was no question of giving any hearing to the
appellant and therefore, the issue raised with regard to C
alleged violation of the principles of natural justice is
without any merit. In any 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 instant case. Despite the said legal provision, the D
State Government in the instant case 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 .E
at that stage did not arise. So the contentions of the
appellant are not found to be wor.thy of acceptance.
[Paras 17 and 19] [38-H; 39-A-B; E-G]

     1.3 A power of review against an order passed is a      F
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      G
as provided in Sections 23 and 23A of the Act, are
concerned, the said provisions are not applicable in the
Instant case for the State Government has not made any
modification in the development plan. Besides, the said
power is exclusively vested with the State Government        H
    34       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 7 S.C.R.


A   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. Therefore, there is no
    error in the judgment passed by the High Court. The
B   impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. [Paras
    20 and 21) [39-H; 40-A-E]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4920 of 2011.

C       From·the Judgment & Order dated 29.8.2008 of the High
    Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in W.A. No.
    1063 of 2006.

        Pramod Swarup, Sushma Verma, Pooja Sharma,
D   Praveen Swarup for the Appellant.

         Vikas Upadhyay (for B.S. Banthia) for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E        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 appeal filed by the
F   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
G 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
H intention of making it available for Navchandi Mela. However,
  BINABAI BHATE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                      35
    AND ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
the land was ancestral and he appellant intended to transfer it       A
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
                                                                      8
Zila Panchayat, Sarpanch Grain 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 resolution dated 26.05.2000 was              C
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              o
  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.                                                                E
      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               F
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.

     7. The Appellant filed Writ Appeal before the High Court         G
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               H
    36       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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.
c      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 along been assured that the
D land belonging to her will not be used for or utilised by the State
  Government for the purpose of h'Jlding a Mela and therefore,
  the acquisition of the said land came as a complete surprise
  to the appellant.

E      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
F 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
G review of orders.
         11. On tfie 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
H
 BINABAI BHATE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                    37
   AND ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
Government to take its own decision considering the facts of A
eacfi case. It was also submitted that there was no violation of
the principles of natural justice and that the appellant was
provided ~ufficient opportunity of hearing.

    12. It was also stated that the appellant would be paid
                                                                8
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.
                                                                  c
     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 D
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 E
provisions of Section 23A of the Act.

      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 F
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 from 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 G
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 H
    38        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A   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
B
    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 procedure and the
    scheme provided for publication of a draft development plan
    and also for approval and preparation of the final development
c   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 pl<1n prepared by the Director under Section
D   14. It also has the power to suggest modifications ~nd
    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
E   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
F
    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
G   same to the Director to modify the same or to prepare a fresh
    plan in 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
H   without any modification and therefore there was no question
 BINABAI BHATE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                         39
   AND ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
:>f inviting any further suggestions as no modification was             A
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.                                                   B

     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         C
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 approve or reject            D
the draft development plan or to approve the same with some
mod.ifications 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 E
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 F
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 app~llant did not submit any objection and therefore the G
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        H
    40       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A 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 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
B 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
c 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
0 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
E any merit. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

    N.J.                                       Appeal dismissed.