HC dismisses pleas against Scheme 164 | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Oct 24, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

HC dismisses pleas against Scheme 164

THE INDORE bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court headed by Justice S K Seth dismissed 17 writ petitions challenging the validity of Scheme No 164 on the ground that there was nothing objectionable in inclusion of Bicholi Hapsi village in the proposed scheme.

india Updated: May 19, 2006 13:30 IST

THE INDORE bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court headed by Justice S K Seth dismissed 17 writ petitions challenging the validity of Scheme No 164 on the ground that there was nothing objectionable in inclusion of Bicholi Hapsi village in the proposed scheme.

In order issued yesterday, the court said that inclusion or exclusion of a village from the area is a legislative function and these were not open for courts to interfere, unless they were arbitrary or unreasonable.

It added that there was a fresh notification under Section 38 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973, which has extended the limits of planning area originally notified on 13.2.1974 and proposed Scheme No 164 comprising various villages, including the one in question, was awaiting sanction. Hence it could not be said that proposed Scheme 164 was suffering from excessive delegation, court remarked.

Among others, M/S Pure Industrial Cock & Chemicals Ltd, a Kolkata-based company through its director C K Tibariwala, had filed a writ against State Government, Indore Development Authority (IDA) and Town and Country Planning (TCP) under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The petitioner, who owned land in Bicholi Hapsi village, contended that IDA had no authority to declare a development scheme incorporating the Bicholi Hapsi land, as Master Plan 1991 prepared by TCP did not include this land under its ambit.

The petitioner obtained the sanction for layout plan from Bicholi-Hapsi village sarpanch, but when it asked TCP sanction, the latter denied it in December 2004. Urging dismissal of writs, the respondents contested the petitioner’s claim and pointed out that a meeting took place on 14.7.04 wherein it was decided that IDA notified area would incorporate increased planning area of 1991 Master Plan and thus would become its operational area.

The respondents further pointed out that State Government delegated powers to District Planning Committee to revise the planning areas. Using this power, the committee amended planning area by including 115 villages and revised the boundaries of planning area consisting of 152 villages.

But on re-consideration, 90 villages were dropped from the list of 152 villages and the matter was referred to government for approval. IDA submitted before the HC that planning area was not static and could be changed by inclusion or exclusion and thus the revised planning area automatically becomes the working area of IDA within its jurisdiction.
 
Besides, Section 13 of 1973 Adhiniyam enables alteration of limits of the planning area. Adding that the writs were premature, petitioners insisted that they do not call for any interference by HC under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Responding to petitioners’ pleadings, HC said that the power to make subordinate legislation was derived from the enabling Act and it was fundamental that the delegate on whom such a power was conferred acted within limits of the authority conferred by the Act. ‘‘The delegation doesn’t appear arbitrary nor its exercise was in bad faith,’’ Justice Seth said.