Holding

The Court held that the proviso to Section 30(5) precludes deemed permission when further information is pending, the later Section 50(2) publication determines the two‑year limitation, and simultaneous Gazette and newspaper publication is not a condition of validity, thereby upholding the draft scheme and the Authority’s refusal to grant a no‑objection certificate.

Summary

The Raipur Development Authority (RDA) published its intention to prepare a town development scheme under Section 50(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Development Act, 1973, on two separate dates. A housing society applied for development permission under Section 29 and later for a no‑objection certificate, but the Authority sought additional information, did not receive it, and closed the file, rejecting the certificate after the draft scheme had been published. The society contended that a deemed permission arose under the proviso to Section 30(5) because no decision was communicated within 60 days, that the draft scheme was published beyond the two‑year limit, and that Rule 18 required simultaneous Gazette and newspaper publication. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 30(5) extends the 60‑day period while information is pending, so no deemed permission arose; the later of the two Section 50(2) publications governs the two‑year limitation, and simultaneous newspaper publication is not a condition of validity. Consequently, the draft scheme remains valid and the Authority’s refusal to issue a no‑objection certificate was lawful.

Issues considered

The effect of the proviso to Section 30(5) on the computation of the 60‑day period and the existence of deemed permission.
Whether the two separate publications under Section 50(2) affect the start date for the two‑year period for publishing the draft scheme under Section 50(3).
Whether Rule 18(2) mandates simultaneous publication in the Gazette and a local newspaper for the draft scheme to be valid.
Whether the Authority was required to grant a no‑objection certificate after the draft scheme was published.
Whether the respondent had a remedy under Sections 31 or 32 of the Act for the rejection of its applications.

Subjects

development schemedeemed permissionSection 30Section 50Rule 18publication requirementno objection certificatestatutory interpretationHeydon's principle

Judgment

RAIUPRDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
' ,,ill v.
ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMIT! AND ORS.

-- MARCH 30, 2000

[A.P. MISRA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B

M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973-Sections 29, 30, 30(5)
(Proviso)-lntention to prepare development scheme published in Gazette-
Applications made for permission to develop land for grant ~o objection
certificate-Applicant did not provide information sought in a series of c
communications-Permission to develop land not granted-Application for
grant of no objection certificate rejected as draft scheme had already been
published-High Cou11 allowed writ petition quashing draft scheme, granting
deemed permission as no decision had been communicated within 60 days-
On appeal held, no question of deemed permission as the required information
had not been provided by applicant-By operation of proviso the period of 60 D
days had not expired as information sought was not received-Grant of no
objection certificate was rejected as draft scheme had been published and no
sanction could be made in contradiction of it-No illegality in the order
passed by the Authority-However an appeal could have been filed under
Section 31 or 32 of the Act, which was not done. E
Sections 50(1), (2), (3)-Publications recording similar intentions were C'

made on two different dates-No ill consequential effect due to two publica-
tions-Second publication not invalid if .first publication allowed to Lapse-
Second publication would be starting point for computation of period of two
years under Section 50(3). F

M.P. Town and Count1y Development Rules, I 975-Rule 18(2 )-limita-
tion of two years starts.from publication under Section 50(2) in Form XIII and
ends with publication of draft scheme under Section 50(3) in Form XN-
Further publication in local newspaper after publication in gazette is required
G
for giving due publicity and need not be done simultaneously-Period of 30
days for filing objections should be counted from publication in newspaper.

Interpretation ofStatutes-Reydon' s principle-Wiren two interpretations
possible, Interpretation subservient to intent of legislature to be accepted-Ob-
ject of Act is to provide planned development and an interpretation uphol<ling H
781
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A this scheme must be followed-M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973.

Certain section of the M.P. Town and Country Development Act,
1973 read with the M.P. Town and Country Development 'Rules, 1975 were
·sought to be interpreted in this appeal. Section 29 of the Act refers to
development of land by any person other than a local body or any authority
B constituted under the Act. Section 30 empowers the Director to grant or
refuse permission while Section 30(5) grants a deemed permission if the
sarhe is not conveyed within 60 days of the application. An intention to
prepare a development scheme has to be published under Section 50(1)
which has to be published within 30 days under Section 50 (2) and then the
C draft scheme is to be published within 2 years under Section 50(3) in the
form and manner prescribed under Rule 18.
Appellant Authority published its intention to prepare a develop-
ment scheme under Section 50(2) on two different dates. Respondent No. l
applied under Section 29 for permission to develop land followed by an-
D other application for grant of a no objection certificate. Certain informa-
tion was sought from the applicant in a series of communications, which
was not provided. Respondent was informed by an order that the draft
scheme had already been published, therefore a no objection certificate
could not be granted. A writ petition was filed before the High Court
contending that a deemed permission had been granted as no decision was
E communicated within 60 days; that the draft scheme was not published
within two years of publication under Section 50(2) and that the require-
ment of simultaneous publication in the gazette and local newspapers
under Rule 18(2) was not completed. High Court allowed the writ petition.
Hence this appeal.
F .Respondents contended before this Court that a deemed permission·
had already been granted; that publication under Section 50(3) had been
made after the limitation of two years expired, that the form and manner
of publication prescribed under Rule 18(2) was not followed; and that
second application for grant of no objection certificate could not have
G been rejected as there is no provision under the Act or the Rules
requiring a no objection certificate.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Proviso to Section 30(5) of the M.P. Town and Country
--~H Development Act, 1973 extends the period of 60 days by excluding the
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANUPAM SARKAR! GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI 783
period during which any further information or document is requisi- A
tioned from the applicant. Respondent No. 1 applied for the development
of the land under Section 29 and before expiry of 60 days five communi-
cations were sent seeking certain information with regard to the develop-
ment permission, which was not forthcoming and so the case was closed.
The contents of the lastletter of the appellant clearly reveal that the case
B
was ordered to be closed and filed and that period of sixty days had not
come to an end, in view of the proviso as required information was not
sent. No question of deemed permission would arise, moreover no appeal
or revision as contemplated under Sections 31and32 of the Act was filed
after this letter was communicated. [788-G-H; 789-C-D]
2. Two publications were made under Section 50(2) in the M.P.
c
Gazette, the both record intent of the appellant to prepare town develop-
ment scheme. It is not revealed from the records as to why two such
publications were made for the same purpose on two different dates al-
though it would not have any ill consequential effect on the appellants. Any
intention even if published under Section 50(2) if it is made to lapse, not ·D
proceeded with for any reason and for some reasons another such publica-
tion is made, in the absence of any embargo under the Act or Rules it would
not invalidate such second publication. The period oflimitation would start
from the later publication. If appellants were pursuing the draft scheme
only in pursuance to the first publication the question of limitation would - E
have gained relevance and valid consideration but when it published an-
other such intent subsequently, the period has to be from this later publica-
tion. The publication under Section 50(3) was made within period of two
years from the date of the publication under section 50(2). The draft
scheme cannot be held to be invalid on this score. [790-D-G]
F
3.1. Rule 18 prescribes the form and manner of such publication and
if read in coherence with Section 50(3) and Section 50(2), the limitation of
two years starts from the date of the publication under Section 50(2) in
Form XIII and ends with the publication of draft scheme under Section
50(3) in Form XIV, when it is published in M.P. Gazette. The publication in
one or more local Hindi newspaper as stated in Rule 18(2) is to give due
G
publicity to the public at large so that they may file their objections to the
draft scheme. Though publication in Gazette is also notice to the public at
large it is always open for the legislature, as in the present case, to give extra
publicity to the public through the publication in any local daily. Puhlic~
tion in the official gazette is to h.e taken to be the date of publication under H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A Section 50(3) for computing the period of two years. Further publication in
one or more local Hindi newspaper is required only for giving due publicity
and making larger section of people aware of such a scheme. Simultaneous
publication both in the gazette and any local Hindi newspaper even if not
made would not invalidate the draft scheme. [791-H; 792-A-B]

B. 3.2. When the publication in form XIV in the M.P. Gazette is made,
the compliance of the form and procedure contemplated under Rule 18 is
complete and if this publication is made within two years of the publication
under Section 50(2), no invalidity could be attributable to any scheme
under it. There are two parts of Rule 18(2). The first part and the second
C part are disjoint with the word "and" which are for different purposes. The
latter part of this rule confers a right on persons to file objection or give
suggestion to the published draft scheme. Starting point for counting 30
days for filing objections or giving suggestions should be from the date
when the draft scheme is published in the newspaper. [792-H; 793-A-D]

D 4. Whenever there are two possible interpretations, the one which
subserve to the intent of the legislature is to be accepted. The object of the
aforesaid Act is for planned development and thus the interpretation,
which upholds any such scheme should be followed. Heydon's principle is
now well recognised in interpreting any enactment. It states that courts
E •. must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances
the remedy. The remedy that the aforesaid Act has provided is for smooth
and fast development of the areas brought under the Act through develop-
ment schemes. The interpretation given by the High Court not only im-
pedes advancement of this remedy but is contrary to the provisions of this
Act. (793-E-G)
F K.P. Varghese v. /ncome-Tax Officer, Emakulam andAnr., [1981] 4 SCC
173, relied on.

5. There was no deemed permission as proceedings were closed for
the lack of response in respect of information sought. The second applica-
tion for grant of no objection certificate was rejected as the draft scheme
G
had already been published and a sanction could only he in terms of the
said scheme and no independent development plan in contradiction of the
sanie could be sanctioned. There is no illegality in the orders. H any
development scheme is published either by the Union Government, State
-
Government or local authority any application by any person under Sec-
H tion 29 for development cannot have its way in contradiction to such
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY v. ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI [MISRA, J.) 785
scheme. The scheme was framed in the year 1985, and delay is being caused A
in implementing the same with full force due to this long litigation. Courts
should normally refrain from interfering, unless it is violative of the Act,
rule or any constitutional provisions. (794-G-H; 795-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 1989.
B
From the Judgment and order dated 25.8.88 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in M.P. No. 3857 of 1987.

Anup B. Choudhary and A.K. Sanghi for the appellant.
R.Ramachandran, S.K. Gambhir, Raja Chatterjee, Sakesh Kumar, Sachin
Das, G.S. Chatterjee and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. C
The Judgment of the comt was delivered by

MISRA, J. The appellant raises the question of interpretation of sub-
sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the M.P. Town and Country Development
Act. 1973, (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 18 of the M.P. Town and D
Country Development Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules').
This appeal is directed against the juagment and order dated 25.8.1988
of the High Court, which allowed the writ petition of the respondent no. I, by
quashing the draft scheme for the development in respect of some of the
villages including Shankar Nagar of Raipur, to which we are concerned, E
published under Section 50 (3) of the Act in M.P. Gazette dated-4.9.1987/
11.9.1987 and by holding in his favour deemed permission under Section
30(5) of the Act to develop its land.
...
We now hereby give some of the bare factual matrix to appreciate the
controversies in this appeal. The appellant .is a statutory authority under the F
Act. The respondent no. I is a Cooperative Housing Society registered under
the M.P. Cooperative Housing Act, 1960. The aforesaid 1973 Act has been
enacted to make provisions for planning, development and use of land for
proper development. with a view to ensure that town planning schemes are
made effectively under Chapter IV of the Act. The State Government through
notification constitutes planning areas and defines its limit. Section 14 enjoins G
the Director to prepare .a development plan. Such development plan is
sanctioned by the State Government. which for the Raipur city was sanctioned
on or before 9.9.1976. Chapter VI deals with control, development and use of
land. Under Section 24, the overall control, development and use of land vests
in the State Government su~ject to the rules framed under the Act. Section 25 H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A enjoins, the use and development of the land must conform to_ the provisions
of the sanctioned development plan, Section 26 prohibits development of any
--
land without the pennission in writing of the Director. Section 27 refers to the
development undertaken by the Union or the State Government. Section 28
refers to the development undertaken by a local body or any authority
B constituted under the Act, while Section 29 refers to the development of the
land by any other person. Section 30 empowers the Director to grant
pennission conditionally, unconditionally or refuse permission while sub-
section (5) refers to a case, where the authority fails to communicate his order
on one's application under Section 29 for development within 60 days of its
making, then pennission would be deemed to have been granted after expiring
c of the said period. Under Section 50(1), the Town and Country Development
Authority may, at any time, declare its intention to prepare a town develop-_
ment scheme which may be published within thirty days thereafter under sub-
section (2). Under sub-section (3) the draft scheme.i$ to be published within
two years of the publication under sub-section (2); in the fonn and the manner
D a~ prescribed under Rule 18 and within 30 days of.this publication, objections
and suggestions could be filed before the conc~med authority who has to
consider and decide the same and make, if any, consequential modifications.
From the date of the final publication of the scheme under sub-section (7),
restrictions are imposed for the use and development of the land by virtue of
E Section 53, which has to be only in accordance with the development
authorised by the Director under Section 54.

Respondent's case in the writ petition before the High Court was that
its society provides !or its members, who belong to economically weaker
section, plots for the construction of houses. It purchased 25 acres of
F agricultural land in Shankar Nagar, Circle No. I, in the year 1985-86. This was
purchased, since the State Government through its policy decision dated
30.10.1981 decided to encourage housing societies to construct houses in
towns of over two lacs of population. It stipulated, 25% of the available land
was to be given to the housing societies for construction of houses and ~n case
G government lands falls short of this, it may acquire any land for the societies.
On the other hand, according to respondent no. l, the appellant published its
intention to prepare a development scheme under sub-section (2) of Section
50 through notification in the M.P. Gazette dated 30.3.1985 including the
village Shankar Nagar, Raipur. Respondent no. l during this period applied on
H 2.6.1986 to respondent no.2, the Regional Joint Director for pennission to
/
1'
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY v. ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI [MISRA, J.] 787

- develop its land under Section 29 and stated that necessary fees shall be
deposited, after permission is given. Respondent no. I through another appli-
A

cation applied for no objection certificate to respondent no.3 on 1.1.1987. On
it an order dated 16.11.1987 was passed that no such certificate could be
issued, as draft development scheme has already been published. With
reference to the first application dated 2.6.1986, respondent's case is, since
B
respondent no.2 did not communicate any of his decision either granting or
refusing the permission, hence after 60 days of the said application, it matured
into deemed permission by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 30. Next
challenge to the draft scheme is that it was not published within two years from
the date of publication under sub- section (2) of Section 30 viz., from
30.3.1985 in term of sub-section (3) of Section 50 hence the same is non est c
and inoperative. It is also submitted that Rule 18(2) requires publication of the
draft scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 50, in the gazette and in one or
more local paper which means publication in both, i.e., in the gazette and the
newspaper has to be simultaneously within a period of two years and the
publication in the newspaper was only made admittedly on 7.11.1987 which D
itself is more than two months from the date of publication under sub-section
(3) of Section 50 in the gazette. Thus for all these reasons the draft scheme
published is invalid and inoperative. Aggrieved by order dated 20.11.1987
passed by the Joint Director, town and country planning, refusing permission
for development and order dated 1.11.1987 issued by Chief Executive Otlicer,
E
Raipur Development Authority refusing to issue no objection certificate, the
respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid writ petition which is allowed by the
impugned order by which the aforesaid draft scheme of the appellant in respect
of village Shankar Nagar of Raipur was quashed. It also held that respondent's
application dated 2.6.1986, after expiry of 60 days, in the absence of any order
qualified as deemed permission under sub-section (5) of Section 30 of the Act. F
Aggrieved by this the appellant have filed the present appeal.

The first contention raised for the appellant is, whether on the facts and
circumstances of this case, in view of sub-section (5) of Section 30 of the Act,
could it be said it to be a case of deemed permission. For the ready reference
G
Section 30 is quoted hereunder:-

"30. Grant or refusal of permission - (1) On receipt of an application
under Section 29 the Director may, subject to the provisions of this
Act, by order in writing -
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A (a) grant the permission unconditionally;

(b) grant the permission, subject to such conditions, as may be
deemed necessary under the circumstances;

(c) refuse the permission.
B
(2) Every order granting permission subject to conditions, or refusing
permission shall state the grounds for imposing such conditions or for
such refusal.

(3) Any permission granted under sub-section (2) with or without
c conditions shall be in such manner as may be prescribed.

(4) Every order under sub-section (2) shall be communicated to the
applicant in such manner as may be prescribed.

(5) If the Director does not communicate his decision whether to
D grant or refuse to the permission applicant within [sixty days]
from the date of receipt of his application, such permission shall
be deemed to have been granted to the applicant on the date
immediately following the date of expiry of [sixty days];

Provided that in computing the period of [sixty days] the period
E
in between the date of requisitioning any further information or
documents from the applicant and the date receipt of such information
or documents form the applicant shall be· excluded."

Under sub-section (5), if the Director does not communicate his decision
F either granting unconditionally or conditionally or refusing the permission
then within 60 days from the date of the receipt of such application, the
permission would be deemed to have been granted. But significantly proviso
to it extends this period by excluding the period during which any further
information or document is requisitioned from the applicant to the date of its
receipt. It is not in dispute that respondent no. l applied for the development
G
of the land under Section 29 on 2.6.1986. The 60 days expires on 2.8.1986.
The respondent case is till this date the Director has neither refused nor
granted the permission hence it would be deemed to have been granted. On
the other hand, appellant strongly relies on the five communications send by
the Joint Director, town and country planning, to respondent no. l seeking
H certain informations with regard to the development permission which was not
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUIBORITY v. ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI [MISRA, J.] 789
forthcoming, for this reason, the case of the respondent was closed, which is A
evidenced from the letter dated 6.10.1986. Thus question of deemed permis-
sion would not arise in view of the said proviso. This letter refers to the said
five earlier communications, namely, letters dated 18.6.1986, 1.7.1986,
21.7.1986, 31.7.1986 and 9.9.1986. The letter records:

"Refer to the above letters with reference to the above subject. The B
information asked from you is still not received. Therefore the case
is closed and filed."

Thus for full more than four months, since making of the said application the
information was not forthcoming.
c
The contents of this letter clearly reveal that the case of the respondent
no.l was ordered to be closed and filed. This letter reveals that period of sixty
days has not come to an end, in view of the said proviso as information. was
not sent as asked for. So question of deemed pe1missicin would not arise. Then
further it constitutes to be a case of rejection of its application. This letter was D
communicated to respondent no. l. He did not file any appeal or revision as
contemplated under Sections 31 and 32 of the said Act. Thus we have no
hesitation to hold that the High Court committed error in recording the finding
that it is a case of deemed permission.

Next submission on behalf of the respondent is that the draft scheme E
was not published within two years from the date of publication of the
declaration under subcsection (2) of Section 50. Submission is that declaration
under sub-section (2) was published on 30.3.1985, hence the publication under
sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the draft scheme made on 4.9 .1987 is beyond
the .period of two years. On the other hand the case of the appellant is that
F
publication under sub-section (2) was made on 6.9.1985 and since the draft
scheme under sub-section (3) of Section 50 was published in the gazette on
4.9.1987 it is within the period of two years, hence no violation.

Section 50 and its sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) are quoted hereunder:-
G
"50. Preparation of town development schemes. - (1) The Town and
Country Development Authority may, at any time, declare its inten-
tion to prepare a town development scheme.

(2) Not later than thirty days from the date of such declaration of
intention to make a scheme, the Town and Country Development H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A Authority shall publish the declaration in the Gazette and in such
other manner as may be prescribed.

(3) Not later than two years from the date of publication of the
declaration under sub-section (2) the Town and Country Development
Authority shall prepare a town development scheme in draft form and
B publish it in such form and manner as may be prescribed together with
a notice inviting objections and suggestions from any person with
respect to the said draft development scheme before such date as may
be specified therein, such date being not earlier than thirty days from
the date of publication of such notice.
c It is not disputed that there are two publications under sub-section (2)
in the M.P. Gazette, one is dated 30.3.1985 and the other is dated 6.9.1985.
Both the aforesaid gazette publications record intent of the appellant to prepare
town development scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 50. It is not
revealed from the records as to why two such publications were made for the
D same purpose on two different dates. Still on these facts question that arises
for our consideration is, as to what would be the starting point for computing
the period of two years. In our considered opinion, it would not have any ill
consequential effect on the appellants, on account of two such publications.
Any intention even if published under sub-section (2) of Section 50 if it is
E made to lapse, not proceeded with for any reason and for some reasons another
such publication is made, in the absence of any embargo under the Act or
Rules to which we have not been pointed, it would not i.nvalidate this second
such publication. In other words, even if after publication of the first intention,
either it is given a go-by or otherwise on rethinking, if another such intention
is published it would be a valid notice when it is published under sub-section
F (2). If that be so, the period of limitation would start from the later such
publication. In the present case it would be 6.9.1985. If appellants were
persuing its draft scheme only in pursuance to the publication made on
30.3.1985, the question of limitation would have gained relevant and valid
consideration but when it published another such intend subsequently, the
G period has to be from this later publication. Admittedly the publication under
sub-section (3) of Section 50 was made on 4.9.1987 which is within period
of two years from the date of the publication dated 6.9 .1985 under sub-section
(2). Thus the draft scheme cannot be held to be invalid on this score.

Next it is submitted that period of two years as required by Section 50
H sub-section (3) is a period between the date of publication under sub-section
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY v. ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI [MISRA, J.] 791
(2) and the date of publTcation under sub-section (3) and it has to be in such A
.. fonn and manner as prescribed under the rules. Rule 18(2) prescribe the form
which requires publication in the M.P. Gazette and one or more local Hindi
newspaper. Thus publication would be complete only when publication both
in the_. gazette and newspaper is made and since the publication in the
newspaper was made more than two months after the date of publication in'
B
the gazette as aforesaid, not being published within two years, it is contrary
to the requirement of the rules. It could be valid only, if both the publications
in the gazette and local newspaper are made simultaneously. The High Court
upheld this contention and held draft scheme to be invalid on this score. We
have considered the finding of the High Court and the submission of learned

I
counsel for the respondent. To appreciate this Rule 18 (1) and (2) is quoted c
hereunder:-
'
~.

Rule 18.- Preparation of Town Development Schemes. - (1) The Town
and Country Development Authority shall publish a notice under sub-
section (2) of Section 50 in Form XIII declaring the intention of
making a town development scheme in the Gazette and by means of D
an advertisement in one or more local Hindi newspaper. Copies
thereof shall also be available for inspection in the office of the Town
and Country Development Authority and Regional Offices of Town
and Country Planning Department concerned.
E
(2) Not later than two years from the date of publication of the
declaration in the form of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) the
Town and Country Development Authority shall publish a public
notice under sub-section (3) of Section 50 in Form XIV in the
"Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra" and in one or more local Hindi newspa-
per to give due publicity intimating that the draft town development F
scheme has been prepared and is available for inspection in the Office
of the Town & Country Development Authority and regional office
of Town and Country Planning Department concerned during office
hours inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the said draft
within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of such G
notice."

Rule 18 prescribes the form and manner of such publication. Sub-rule (1)
refers to the publication of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 50 to be
in Form XIII of the intention of making a town development scheme. Sub-rule
(2) refers to the publication of notice of draft scheme contemplated under sub- H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A section (3) of Section 50 to be in Form XIV. This further records, it should
be published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette and in one or more local Hindi
ne\\'.spaper to give due publicity that the draft town development scheme has
...
been prepared and is available for inspection in the office of the Town and
Country Development Authority, inviting objections and suggestions with
respect to the said draft. If we read in coherence both Section 50 sub-section
B
(3) and sub-section (2) with Rule 18, the limitation of two years starts from
the date of the publication under sub-section (2) of Section 50 in Form XIII
and ends with the publication of draft scheme under sub-section (3) of Section
50 in Form· XIV, when it is published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette. The
publication in one or more local Hindi newspaper as stated in sub-rule (2) of
c Rule 18 is to give due publicity to the public at large so that they may file their
objections to the draft scheme. Though publication in Gazette is also notice
to the public at large it is always open for the legislature, as in the present case,
to give extra publicity to the public through the publication in any local daily.
In fact, Rule 2 with respect to the publication in the Hindi newspaper records:
D " ... and in one or more local Hindi newspaper to give due publicity
intimating that the draft town development scheme has been prepared
and is available for inspection..... "

[Emphasis supplied]
I
E However, for computing the period of two years, the moment it is I

published in the official gazette it is to be taken to be the date of publication
under sub-section (3) of Section 50. As we have said, further publication in
one or more local Hindi newspaper is required only for giving due publicity,
J

for making larger section of people aware -of such a scheme.
F
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 requires:

"Not later than · two years from the date of publication of the
declaration in the form of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) the
Town and Country Development Authority shall publish a public
G notice under sub-section (3) of Section 50 in Form XIV in the Madhya
Pradesh Rajpatra (Madhya Pradesh Govt. Gazette) .... ". -·
Tims, when the publication intorm XIV in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette

H
is made, the compliance of the form and procedure of this Rule is complete.
So if this publication is made within two years of the publication under sub-
section (2) ofSection 50, no invalidity could be attributable to any scheme -
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTIIORITY v. ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI [MISRA, J.) 793
wider it. In view of this, it is not necessary to go into another question, whether A
this compliance is mandatory or directory. The submission that for computing
period of two years the compliance of publication would only be completed
if it is also published simultaneously in the local newspaper has no merit.
There are two parts of sub-rule (2) of Rule 18. The first part we have quoted
above and the second part which is disjoint with the word "and" is for another
purpose, which is quoted hereunder:
B

" ..... and in one or more local·Hindi newspaper to give due publicity
intimating that the draft Town and Country Development Scheme has
been prepared and is available for inspection...... .inviting objections
and suggestions .......... within a period of thirty days of the publication C
of such notice."

The later part of this rule confers a right on persons to file objection or
give suggestion to the published draft scheme. So for counting the period of
thirty days, it is the date when the draft scheme is published in the newspaper
is to be taken as the date of the sta1ting point. D

Whenever there are two possible interpretations, the one which subserve
to the intend of the legislature is to be accepted. The object of the aforesaid
Act is for planned development and thus the interpretation, which upholds any
such scheme should be followed. Heydon' s principle is now well recognised
E
in interpreting any enactment. It lays down that courts must see, (a) what was
the law before making of the Act; (b) what was the mischief or defect for
which the law did not provide; (c) what is the remedy that the Act has
provided; (d) what is the reason of the remedy. It states that courts must adopt
that constmction which: suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. This
has been approved by this count in number of decisions. One of them is K.P. F
Varghese v. Income-tax Officer; Emakulam and Am:, [1981] 4 SCC 173.
I
The remedy that aforesaid Act has provided is for smooth and fast
development of the areas brought tihder the Act through development schemes.
We find the interpretation given by the' High Court which not only impedes
G
advancement of this remedy but is contrary to the provisions of this Act. So,
we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court committed an error in
holding that publication in the M.P. Gazette and local newspaper must be
simultaneously.

For all the aforesaid reasons we have no hesitation to hold, simultaneous H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 2 S.C.R.
A publication both in the gazette and any local Hindi newspaper even if not made
would not invalidate the draft scheme.

Next submission is publication under sub-section (2) of Section 50 has
to be within 30 days from the date of declaration of the intention to prepare
a develOpment scheme under sub-section (1). In other words, submission is
B unless publication under sub-section (2) is made within 30 days from the date
of declaration under sub-section (1), the draft scheme must fall as this has not
been done. Firstly, we do not find any such material on record as to when
declaration of intention to make such draft scheme was made nor we find any
such submission made by respondent no. l before the High Court in the writ
c petition. Thus it has no merit and hence rejected.

Lastly it is submitted that respondent no. I application dated 1.1.1987 to
the Chief Executive Officer of the appellant for the grant of no objection
-
certificate was rejected on 16.11.1987 by him and also by the Joint Director,
Town and Country Planning through order dated 20.11.1987 are liable to be
D set aside, as there is no provision under the Act or the Rules, requiring such
no objection certificate. This is misconceived which we shall be referring
.hereinafter. It seems respondent no. I made two applications for the develop-
ment. First is on 2.6.1986 and the second is, as aforesaid, dated 1.1.1987.

So far the 1st application dated 2.6.1986, we have already recorded that
E there is no deemed permission under sub-section (5) of Section 30. In fact,
proceeding in pursuance to the same was closed for the lack of response from
the respondent in respect of information sought. The second application is
dated 1.1.1987 in which the respondent-society states about purchasing certain
lands in villages and this society itself seeks issuance of no objection
F certificate from the appellant. However, the Chief Executive Officer rejected
this through an order dated 16.11.19 87 as the land in question which is situate
in, the village Shankar Nagar, in which a draft scheme, as ·aforesaid, has
already been published. Admittedly when a draft scheme is published a
sanction could only be in terms of ;the said .scheme and no independent
development plan in contradiction of the same could be sanctioned. Similarly,
G through letter/order dated 20.11.1987 the Joint Director, Town and Country
Planning also did not approve the application of respondent no. I as applied
area comes under the residential scheme of Raipur Development Authority

H
which has already been published in the gazette. We do not find any illegality
in the said two orders. This apart, respondent no. I, if aggrieved, had a remedy
either by preferring an appeal or revision against it under Section 31 or 32 of
-
RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AU1HORJ'IY v. ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI [MISRA, J.) 795
the Act Even otheiwise, we feel if any development scheme is published_ A
either by ·the Union Government, State Government or local authority any
application by any person under Section 29 for development cannot have its
way in contradiction to such.. scheme. The scheme was framed in. the year
1985, because of this long litigation delay is being caused in implementing the
same with full force. The courts should normally refrain from interfering with
B
the same, unless it is violative of the Act, rule or any constitutional provisions.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we find merit in this appeal and hold that
the High Court committed error in quashing the draft scheme and allowing the
application of respondent no. l. Thus we allow the present appeal and set aside
the judgment and order dated 25.8.1988 passed by the High Court. Costs on c
the parties. I

A.Q. Appeal allowed.

~--