Judgment S.K.Seth, J. ( 1. ) This intra Court appeal is against the Order dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2050 of 2008. By the impugned order, writ petition filed by Rajesh Lalwani (respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed against the Indore Development Authority and it was directed to issue "No Objection Certificate" not only to Rajesh Lalwani but to any one who applies for grant of such "NOC. ( 2. ) During the course of argument, learned counsel for IDA reiterated contentions urged before the learned Single Judge. In addition two more questions have been raised for our consideration in this appeal, viz. whether Scheme No. 133 framed by the appellant under the provisions of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "ACT" for short) stood revived notwithstanding the fact that earlier IDA had given up the said Scheme as being unworkable and economically unviable in view of the refusal of the State Government to accord approval to the Draft Scheme? And whether learned Single Judge was justified in issuing a blanket order for issuance of NOC to one and all? ( 3. ) Facts which are relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under. ( 4. ) Indore Development Authority (IDA for short) on 14.5.1993 passed resolution No. 71 to frame Scheme No. 133 in respect of 285.509 hectares of agriculture land of village Piplyakumar, Tehsil and District Indore. A declaration to this effect was published in the gazette on 18.6.1993. On 12.5.1995, draft scheme was published inviting objections/ suggestions from general public and persons likely to be affected by the proposed scheme. It appears that ex post facto sanction of the State Government was sought somewhere in the month of August 2002 but vide communication dated 1.11.2002,(Annexure P-3 to the writ petition) State Government refused to grant sanction to Scheme No. 133 and same stand was reiterated, as is clear from communication dated 1.1.2003(Annexure P-4). Matter was put up before the Board of Directors of the IDA in the meeting held on 6.3.2003 and after detailed examination of prevailing circumstances; the IDA decided to abandon the Scheme in question as being unworkable and economically unviable. Matter was put up before the Board of Directors of the IDA in the meeting held on 6.3.2003 and after detailed examination of prevailing circumstances; the IDA decided to abandon the Scheme in question as being unworkable and economically unviable. Ultimately after detailed physical survey, it was found that out of 285.509 hectares of land, approximately only 67 hectare of undeveloped land was available for proposed Scheme No. 133 and as such IAD sought permission of the State Government to drop the Scheme No. 133 before any further step could be taken under Section 50(4) of the Act. State Government was more or less agreeable to the proposal contained in Annexure P-8 as is clear from Annexure-9 dated 11.9.2003. From the material available on record, it seems that no steps under Section 50 of the Act were taken by the IDA in respect of 67 hectares of land. ( 5. ) Now we come to Rajesh Lalwani and what compelled him to file the writ petition. In the year 2005, by a registered sale deed (Annexure P-2) he purchased 0.040 hectare agriculture land situated in village Piplyakumar. He applied for No Objection Certificate from the IDA. As per resolution No. 195 dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) read with communication dated 5.10.2007 (Annexure P-14), NOC for the land in question was refused on the premise that Scheme No. 133 was in force. Rajesh Lawani challenged the said refusal by filing the writ petition, giving rise to this writ appeal. ( 6. ) The main plank of attack was that out of 285.509 hectare of land proposed for the Development Scheme No. 133, only 67 hectares of unencumbered land were available and as such proposed Scheme No. 133 could not be implemented. It was contented that from the date of publication of intention and draft Scheme, NOC was issued by the IDA to various Co-op. housing societies and individuals in respect of plans approved by the Director Town and Country Planning and as such large chunk of land was not available for implementation of proposed Scheme No. 133. This factor was duly taken note of by the IDA before holding that the said Scheme was unworkable and economically unviable. It was also urged that State Government never accorded its permission to the said proposed Scheme, hence revival was not automatic. ( 7. This factor was duly taken note of by the IDA before holding that the said Scheme was unworkable and economically unviable. It was also urged that State Government never accorded its permission to the said proposed Scheme, hence revival was not automatic. ( 7. ) IDA, that is, appellant was the only respondent in the writ petition which contested the matter. IDA filed reply and documents to show that earlier decision was wrong, illegal and resiled from the earlier stand and contended that the scheme stood revived automatically; therefore refusal of NOC was justified. State Government and Director Town and Country Planning (respondent No. 1 and 3 in writ petition), watched the fight in the arena as silent spectators. ( 8. ) Before deciding the writ petition, learned Single Judge was assured by the IDA on oath that no steps were taken by the IDA under Section 50(4) as would be evident from the Order-Sheet dated 7.8.2008 passed in WP which is available at page 21 of the Paper Book, then proceeded to hear the arguments. After hearing rival contentions, learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition on the ground that in view of proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act, the Scheme stood lapsed because of the failure on the part of IDA to implement the Scheme within requisite time as contemplated in proviso to Section 50(4) of the Act. ( 9. ) At the outset, we must state that an intra-court appeal whereunder the Division Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. See Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple, (1996) 3 SCC 52 . ( 10. ) Before we proceed to deal with the questions involved in this appeal, we may point out that the Act in question is an expropriatory piece of legislation as has been held in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd, (2007) 8 SCC 705 . In said decision, it has been held that "48. ( 10. ) Before we proceed to deal with the questions involved in this appeal, we may point out that the Act in question is an expropriatory piece of legislation as has been held in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd, (2007) 8 SCC 705 . In said decision, it has been held that "48. The courts cannot also be oblivious of the fact that the owners who are subject to the embargos placed under the statute are deprived of their valuable rightful use of the property for a long time. Although ordinarily when a public authority is asked to perform statutory duties within the time stipulated it is directory in nature but when it involves valuable rights of the citizens and provides for the consequences therefor it would be construed to be mandatory in character." ( 11. ) Section 50 of the Act, which are material for our purpose, read as under: "50. Preparation of town development schemes - (1) The Town and Country Development Authority may, at any time, declare its intention 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 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 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. (4) The Town and Country Development Authority shall consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (3) and shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to such persons affected thereby as are desirous of being heard, or after considering the report of the committee constituted under sub-section (5) approve the draft scheme as published or make such modifications therein as it may deem fit." ( 12. ) A proviso has been added thereafter to sub-section (4) by the Act of 2004 in terms whereof a draft scheme must be approved within a period of one year from the publication thereof. Thus it is clear from bare perusal of Section 50 that in making a town development scheme, however, the process undertaken is a three-stage one inasmuch as an intention therefor is declared, which entails serious consequences and, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason thereof, a total embargo is imposed both on land use as also the development. For the said purpose, a time- limit within which a draft town planning scheme has to be finalised is provided but the same can be subject to modification by the State which ordinarily should be with a view to deal with the same in line with the final development plan. ( 13. ) Section 51 provides for revision of the draft scheme. Section 53 imposes restrictions on land use and land development in the following terms: "53. Restrictions on land use and land development.-As from the date of publication of the declaration to prepare a town development scheme, no person shall, within the area included in the scheme, institute or change the use of any land or building or carry out any development, save in accordance with the development authorised by the Director in accordance with the provisions of this Act prior to the publication of such declaration." Thus, it is clear that no sooner publication of declaration to prepare a town planning scheme is made, Section 53 of the Act comes into play, and places a total embargo both on land use as also the development. It is well settled proposition of law that when an Act is an expropriatory legislation, provisions of such an Act should be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his valuable right to property as envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of this nature due application of mind on the part of IDA is imperative. ( 14. ) From the facts noticed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of the Act being expropriatory, they require strict construction. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of this nature due application of mind on the part of IDA is imperative. ( 14. ) From the facts noticed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the provisions of the Act being expropriatory, they require strict construction. After the State Government refused to accord its ex-post-facto sanction to proposed Scheme No. 133, the IDA having taking into account every facet of the case, took a conscious decision to drop the Scheme No. 133. The stand taken by the appellant on the erroneous assumption that Scheme stood revived automatically to refuse NOC to Rajesh Lalwani is an outcome of total non-application of mind on the part IDA and its officers. Such a stand is unsustainable in law in view of the foregoing discussion. We, therefore, do not agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge when he allowed the writ petition on ground of retrospective application of proviso to Section 50(4) especially in view of the Full Bench decision in W.A. No. 1455 of 2007 in the matter of Indore Development Authority viz. M/s. Shri Ram Builders and others decided 24.4.2009 at the Main Seat. In view of the said decision it is no longer open for us to hold that Proviso to Section 50(4) of the Act is retrospective in nature. Be that as it may, the Full Bench has held that it is prospective in nature, therefore, we agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge in view of the above discussion but not with his reasoning. We are of view the learned Single Judge should not have issued a blanket order for grant of NOC. Grant of NOC depends upon many factors and each case has to be examined in the light of surrounding facts and circumstances. ( 15. ) In view of the foregoing discussion we dismiss the appeal with costs throughout with the slight modification as pointed hereinabove with regard to issuance of NOC. Counsels fee Rs. 2500/-, if certified.