M. V. TAMASKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed challenging the action of respondents 1 to 4 in allotting plots over Kh. Nos. 327/ 18 and 327/ 19 of Tikrapara, Raipur without acquiring the said lands by following the procedure as required under the provisions Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960, or under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam, 1973. ( 2 ) THE petitioner owned Kh. Nos. 327/ 18 and 327/ 19. Over the said lands houses have been constructed by the respondents 5 to 12 on having been allotted the said plots by the Raipur Development Authority. ( 3 ) THAT, the record shows that the M. P. Town Improvement Trust Act was in force, Schemes were published sometime in the year 1971 both in the Government Gazette and local newspapers. The said schemes appear not to have been finalised and the Raipur Development Authority was established sometime in 1977. On establishment of Raipur Development Authority, M. P. Town Improvement Trust Act ceased to apply and the schemes which were already published had to be completed under the provisions of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam. ( 4 ) THE said schemes framed by Town Improvement Trust was saved under the provisions of Section 87 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam, 1973. ( 4 ) THE said schemes framed by Town Improvement Trust was saved under the provisions of Section 87 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The relevant clause is as under :"section 87.- Repeal, savings and constitution of references - (1) As from the date of - (a) the coming into force of the provisions of Chapter II, the reference to the Chief Town Planner in any enactment for time being in force, shall be construed as a reference to the Director; (b) the constitution of a planning area, the following consequences shall ensue, namely - (i) the Madhya Pradesh Town Planning Act, 1948, No. 17 of 1948, shall stand repealed in such area; (ii) any land use map, draft development plan or development plan prepared under the said Act shall be deemed to have been prepared under this Act, and all papers relating thereto stand transferred to the Director; the establishment of the Town and Country Development Authority for any area the following consequences shall ensue in relation to that area namely (i) the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (No. 14 of 1961), shall stand repealed in its application to the said area; (ii) the Improvement Trust functioning within the jurisdiction of the Town and Country Development Authority so established shall stand dissolved and any Town Improvement scheme prepared under the said Act shall in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act be deemed to have been prepared under this Act. " ( 5 ) THE schemes under M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam are to be processed under Sections 49 to 56 of the Act which give the complete procedure for framing of the schemes till the acquisition of land under the scheme and the payment of the compensation in respect of the land. ( 6 ) SECTION 49 speaks about town development schemes. Section 50 speaks about the preparation of town development schemes and the procedure for finalisation of the scheme. Section 53 speaks about restrictions on land use and the publication of the scheme and the approval of the same. Section 54 deals with lapse of scheme and Section 56 speaks about acquisition of - land for town and country development authority. Section 50 speaks about the preparation of town development schemes and the procedure for finalisation of the scheme. Section 53 speaks about restrictions on land use and the publication of the scheme and the approval of the same. Section 54 deals with lapse of scheme and Section 56 speaks about acquisition of - land for town and country development authority. Section 56 is quoted below:-"section 56 - Acquisition of land for Town and Country Development Authority - The Town and Country Development Authority may at any time after the date of publication of the final town development scheme under Section 50 but not later than three years therefrom, processed to acquire by agreement the land required for the implementation of the scheme and, on its failure so to acquire, the State Govt. may at the request of the Town and Country Development Authority, processed to acquire such land under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act 1894 (No. 1 of 1894), and on the payment of compensation awarded under that Act and any other charges incurred by the State Government in connection with the acquisition, the land shall vest in the Town and Country Development Authority subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. "under the provisions on payment of compensation the land vest in the Authority. ( 7 ) THE petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in taking possession of the land and allotting the same to the respondents 5 to 12. The scheme under which the land has been taken possession of is not finally approved by the State Government. There is statement contained in the return filed by the respondent in Town Development Authority that the same was approved and was finally published in Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra on 16-2-1977. The judicial notice of which can be taken. ( 8 ) A civil suit was also filed by the petitioner for grant of injunction against the authority but the same was dismissed. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the finalisation of the scheme the respondents 5 to 12 have entered possession and constructed their houses. In the return and documents filed by the respondents 1 to 4 it is alleged that proceedings for payment of compensation are pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, but the same have not yet been finalised. In the return and documents filed by the respondents 1 to 4 it is alleged that proceedings for payment of compensation are pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur, but the same have not yet been finalised. ( 10 ) IT is rather surprising that even though the draft scheme was framed in 1971 and was approved in 1982, the acquisition proceedings have not yet, been completed as such petitioner is deprived of the property without payment of compensation. ( 11 ) THE question which is to be considered in the present case, is whether the respondents 5 to 12 are liable to be ejected and the possession of the land be handed over to the petitioner as no compensation has been paid under the provisions of the Act by the respondents 1 to 4. ( 12 ) HAVING gone through the allegations, in the petition, return and documents, there can be no doubt that respondents 5 to 12 entered into possession and constructed their houses on the basis of the orders or allotment made by respondent No. 1. Since the scheme has been finalised there can be doubt that the petitioner cannot make use of the said land for any other purpose. It is also clear that the scheme has not lapsed. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner can be said to have been deprived of his property without payment of compensation to him and that violates his fundamental rights of property, and, deprivation of property without following the procedure under the law. It is rather surprising that the authorities who are supposed to act under the provisions of defferent clauses are just sleeping without taking any step. ( 13 ) IN Indore Development Authority v. Madanlal, AIR 1990 SC 1143 it has been held that the schemes which are saved under Section 87 (1) (c) (ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam are those which were approved by the State Government, under Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, there is no material placed by both the sides on the basis of which it can be said that the scheme was not finally approved under the provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, there is no material placed by both the sides on the basis of which it can be said that the scheme was not finally approved under the provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam. In the case of Ind ore Development Authority (supra) the Supreme Court even after finding that the scheme could not have been saved under Section 87 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act, gave liberty to the Development Authority to invite objections and finalise the scheme after hearing the objections according to law. Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were also saved. However, the Supreme Court directed that the claimants shall be paid compensation for the land acquired on the market value on the publication of the scheme under Section 56 (7) of the Adhiniyam if the scheme is ultimately approved as indicated above. ( 15 ) THUS, even after finding that there was no complete procedure followed by the Development Authority, the Supreme Court did not consider it proper to quash the scheme as a whole. In the instant case, it is not clear whether the scheme under which the lands were allotted suffered from any procedural defect. The only question that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the matter referred to Land Acquisition Officer, but it has not yet decided the compensation. ( 16 ) IN the similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Ramachand v. Union of India, (1994)1 SCC 44 :1993 AIR SCW 3479 has recently held that a land which has been taken in possession long back from the petitioners, no compensation has yet been determined. If the amount of Award is to be fixed taking into consideration of the notification, if issued in the year 1977, is correct and Award is to be determined now with reference to the said date, the petitioners are very much prejudiced. Moreover, it cannot be said compliance of the mandate regarding payment of market value of the lands so acquired under the Constitution and the Act. ( 17 ) THE Supreme Court has held as under :-"the petitioners because of the delay and inaction on the part of the respondents are in a great predicament. Moreover, it cannot be said compliance of the mandate regarding payment of market value of the lands so acquired under the Constitution and the Act. ( 17 ) THE Supreme Court has held as under :-"the petitioners because of the delay and inaction on the part of the respondents are in a great predicament. Any amount determined as market value of their lands acquired, with reference to the dates of issuance of notifications under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act i. e. at the rate of prevation 15-21 years prior to the dates of the making of the Award, cannot be held to be compliance of the mandate regarding payment of market value of the land so acquired under the Constitution and the Act. This Court faced with such a situation, where proceedings have remained pending for years after issuance of declarations under Section 6, in order to protect the petitioners concerned from irreparable injury i. e. getting compensation for their lands acquired with reference to the date notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4, which may be more than a decade before the date of the making of the Award, has advance the date of notification under sub-section (1) of - Section 4 of the Act, so that market value of the land so acquired is paid at a just and reasonable rate. Reference in this connection may be made to the cases of Ujjain Vikas Pradhikarn v. Raj Kumar Johri, (1992) 1 SCC 328 : AIR 1992 SC 1538 , Akhara Brahm Buta, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 366 : (1992) 4 SCC 243 : (1992) 5 JT SC 136 and Bihar State Housing Board v. Ram Bihari Mahato, AIR 1988 SC 2134 . This Court has advanced the date of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, in the cases referred to above, without assigning any reason, as to how the date fixed by Sections 11 and 23 of the Act, can be altered for ascertainment of the market value of land. The power of this Court under Article 142 is very wide and can be exercised in the ends of justice. The scope of the said Article was recently examined in the case of Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 : AIR 1992 SC 248 . The power of this Court under Article 142 is very wide and can be exercised in the ends of justice. The scope of the said Article was recently examined in the case of Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584 : AIR 1992 SC 248 . ""there appears to be some force in the connection of the petitioners that the object of respondents was to pay the price of the lands acquired from the different cultivators to a distant past and not to proceed further because if the Awards had be made soon after the declarations under Section 6, respondent had to pay or tender the compensation to the claimants, which for some compulsion, respondents were not in a position to pay or tender them. But, nonetheless, the exercise of power in the facts and circumstances of the cases by the respondents has to be held to be against the spirit of the provisions of the Act, tending towards arbitrariness. In such a situation this Court in exercise of power under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226, could have quashed the proceedings. But, taking into consideration that in most of the cases, the Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority have taken possession of the lands and even development have been made, it shall not be proper exercise of discretion on the part of this Court to quash the proceedings because, in that event, it shall affect the public interest. Moreover, third party interests created in the meantime are also likely to be affected and such third parties are not impleaded. The relief of quashing the acquisition proceeding having become inappropriate due to the subsequent events, the grant of a modified relief, considered appropriate in the circumstances, would be the proper course to adopt. The High Court or this Court, can grant a modified relief taking into consideration the injury caused to the claimants by the inaction on the part of respondents and direct payment of any additional amount, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The High Court or this Court, can grant a modified relief taking into consideration the injury caused to the claimants by the inaction on the part of respondents and direct payment of any additional amount, in exercise of power under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. "( 18 ) AS laid down by the Supreme Court that in similar circumstances, under Article 226 of the Constitution the Court could have quashed all the proceedings but taking into consideration that the developments have been made and possession handed over to third party, to quash the proceeding would not be in public interest specially when third party interests were created and the persons would be affected for no fault of their own. The Supreme Court, therefore, considered that the court can adopt a method and grant relief to the petitioners taking into consideration the injury caused to the claimants by inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 4 and direct payment of any additional amount in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 19 ) WE do not quash the scheme or the allotment of put in favour of respondents 5 to 12 as it will work hardship more so when the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam, the land cannot be utilised for any other purpose. The petitioner cannot claim any better right except to get compensation. In the instant case the respondents being negligent, we direct that if the land acquisition proceedings are not completed with a period of 3 months from the date of order the Raipur Development Authority shall pay compensation by mutual negotiations as provided under Section 56 of the Act on the market rate prevailing. In addition to the same we further direct that the respondents 1 to 4 shall immediately pay Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation in addition to the compensation that may be decided under the land acquisition proceedings. This amount shall be paid within a month from the date to passing of the order. In case the compensation proceedings are not completed by mutual negotiations within the stipulated period as directed above the petitioner shall be free to approach this Court for taking any steps against respondents. ( 20 ) THE petitioner shall get cost of this petition Rs. In case the compensation proceedings are not completed by mutual negotiations within the stipulated period as directed above the petitioner shall be free to approach this Court for taking any steps against respondents. ( 20 ) THE petitioner shall get cost of this petition Rs. 1000/- which shall be recovered from the Administrator of Raipur Development Authority for their negligence and apathy in getting the matter not decided even after allotting the land to the respondents 5 to 12 as back as 1983. ( 21 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed. ( 22 ) A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State. Petition allowed. .