ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 3-9-2019 as well as order dated 28-8-2019 passed by the Gwalior Development Authority. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner claims itself to be a Co-operative Society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Adhiniyam, 1960. 3. A notification under section 50(7) of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1960 (In short “Adhiniyam 1960”), was issued notifying “Maharajpura Residential Scheme”. As per the provisions of section 56 of Adhiniyam, 1960, the Gwalior Development Authority, within a period of three years from the date of publication of notification could have acquired the land by entering into an agreement with the owner of the land or else, it was required to make a request to the State Govt. to acquire the land as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 4. It appears that on 24-12-1997, the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. 4 to purchase Survey No. 388 area 20 bigha 6 biswa situated in village Mau, Tahsil and Distt. Gwalior, and thereafter within 4 days, i.e., on 28-12-1997 a tripartite agreement was entered into between the petitioner, Gwalior Development Authority and the owners including respondent No. 4. As per the agreement, it was agreed that with the consent of the owners, the petitioner shall handover the vacant possession of the lands to the Gwalior Development Authority, and the acknowledgment of receipt of possession shall be given to the petitioner. The Gwalior Development Authority shall give 25% of the land to the petitioner in the form of developed residential plots and the petitioner as well as the owners shall leave remaining 75% of the land in favor of the Gwalior Development Authority. It was further observed that the owners shall have the right to recover the consideration amount from the petitioner and shall not stake any claim in this regard against the Gwalior Development Authority. It was further observed that the owners shall have the right to recover the consideration amount from the petitioner and shall not stake any claim in this regard against the Gwalior Development Authority. It is submitted that no action was taken by the G.D.A. for taking up Survey No. 388 and since the rates of the land had also increased, therefore, another fresh agreement of sale was entered into between the petitioner and the owner/respondent No. 4 and in addition to the original price paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4/owner, it was also decided that the petitioner shall pay an additional amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 30 Lakhs per bigha. It is the case of the petitioner, that an amount of Rs. 20 Lakh has also been paid to the respondent No. 4. Since, it was not clear that whether the GDA would take possession of the Survey No. 388 or not, therefore, it was also mutually agreed between the parties, that if some private person would be interested in purchasing the land, then the same shall be given to him. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the GDA had not shown any interest in taking over the survey No. 388, therefore, one Saurabh Shrivastava, showed his intention to purchase the rights of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner gave an affidavit to respondent No. 2 that the petitioner would not claim any right in the land if his rights are reimbursed by the intending purchaser. However, the intending purchaser got an information about the dispute therefore, he withdrew himself and accordingly a further amount of Rs. 12,25,000 was paid by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 8,19,85,000/- on account of the fact that excess land has been allotted to the petitioner. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner and submitted that as per the tripartite agreement, the petitioner was entitled for 21,000 Sq. Mt. of land whereas only 14,000 Sq. Mt. of land has been allotted. 8,19,85,000/- on account of the fact that excess land has been allotted to the petitioner. The show cause notice was replied by the petitioner and submitted that as per the tripartite agreement, the petitioner was entitled for 21,000 Sq. Mt. of land whereas only 14,000 Sq. Mt. of land has been allotted. It is further submitted that the notice dated 25-9-2018 was challenged by the petitioner by filing W. P. No. 25258/2018 and the said writ petition was disposed of with an observation, that since, the petitioner has approached this Court against the show cause notice and no final order has been passed so far, therefore, it was directed that the competent authority shall decide the matter by passing a speaking order. It is further submitted that one R.I. of G.D.A. (not made a party in the petition) was trying to grab the land in collusion with the land grabbers, by getting the land of Kamal Singh/respondent No. 4 settled with GDA directly by means of fresh agreement. Accordingly, the petitioner moved a complaint to the senior officers of G.D.A. It is further submitted that now the respondent No. 1, without any intimation to the petitioner, has fraudulently got the land from respondent No. 4 and has given the developed plot to respondent No. 4, which is contrary to the tripartite agreement. Accordingly, the petition was filed against the order dated 3-9-2019 by which it has been decided to give developed plots to the respondent No. 4. 5. An application for amendment in the writ petition has been filed as I. A. No. 5100 of 2019 and the order dated 28-8-2019 has also been challenged, by which the petitioner has been directed to refund Rs. 1,68,24,000/- on the ground that excessive land was allotted to the petitioner. 6. The respondents No. 2 and 3, filed their return and submitted that several disputed questions of fact have been raised by the petitioner, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To buttress the above submission, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of W. B. vs. Somdeb Bandopadhyay, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 694 , Food Corporation of India vs. Palaram, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 32 . To buttress the above submission, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of W. B. vs. Somdeb Bandopadhyay, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 694 , Food Corporation of India vs. Palaram, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 32 . It was further pleaded that the petitioner has claimed its title over the land bearing Survey No. 388 situated in village Mau on the basis of tripartite agreement. In fact Survey No. 388 is a part of “Maharajpura Residential Scheme” notified under section 50(7) of Adhiniyam, 1973 which was published in official gazette on 20-1-1989. In the light of the observations dated 25-9-2018 made by this Court in W. P. No. 25258/2019, an order dated 28 -8-2019 has been passed. It is submitted that on 4-1-2019, the petitioner society itself had submitted an application to cancel the agreement with regard to Survey No. 388 area 17 bigha 6 biswa on the ground that the petitioner has cancelled his agreement with Kamal Singh/ respondent No. 4 and if any amount is outstanding against the petitioner, then it shall be paid by the petitioner only. There was no sale transaction between the petitioner and Kamal Singh/respondent No. 4 and since, agreement to sell does not create any right or title, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application 25-5-2017 to abandon its claim over Survey No. 388 area 17 bigha 6 biswa originally owned by Kamal Singh/respondent No. 4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner has abandoned its claim over Survey No. 388, the order dated 28-8-2019 has been passed and the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 1,68,24,000/- against additional allotment of land-cum-pricing 21,030 sq.ft. and in order to implement the scheme in question, an agreement has been executed with the respondent No. 4 and developed plots have been released in his favour. Thus, it was prayed that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and in spite of the fact, that it was the petitioner who had abandoned its claim over Survey No. 388, has filed this petition for enforcement of tripartite agreement. Thus it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts. Thus it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts. The Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjab, Venture Global Engg. vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., reported in (2003) 9 SCC 401 , Manoharlal vs. Ugrasen, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 660 , reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 and Amar Singh vs. Union of India, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 69 . 7. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder, but in the rejoinder, did not deny the making of application dated 16-5-2017 and an affidavit of Balmukund Sharma dated 19-5-2017. It is submitted by the petitioner, that in fact, the petitioner had co-operated with the G.D.A. and had helped it in order to get its name mutated in the revenue records. It has also been claimed that the letter dated 1-4-2019 has been manufactured and it does not bear the signatures of Balmukund Sharma. It is further submitted that there is no order like 29-5-2019 and the stand taken by the G.D.A. that the land has been released from tripartite agreement is also false. It is submitted that the tripartite agreement was not a simple agreement but it was by way of acquisition under section 56 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and cannot be cancelled on receipt of request of one party only. It is also submitted that the story put forth by the respondents No. 4 and 5 that the agreement with the petitioner in the year 2016 has been cancelled is a farce and the respondent No. 4 has tried to play a joke with the judicial system. It is further submitted that the deed of cancellation of agreement dated 15-5-2017 is a forged document and was never signed by the President of the petitioner Society. 8. The respondents No. 4 and 5 have filed I. A. No. 5143 of 2019 for dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner Society has no right or title in the land bearing Survey No. 388 area 20 bighas 6 biswa as the same exclusively belongs to Kamal Singh/respondent No. 4 who has not sold the same either to the Society or to the Gwalior Development Authority. It is further stated that the petitioner society had filed an application before the G.D.A. mentioning therein that the agreement dated 15-12-1997 be treated as cancelled and it is not claiming any right over the survey No. 388. 9. It is also submitted that in fact the agreement dated 15-12-1997 is a forged document which was never executed between the petitioner and Kamal Singh/respondent No. 4. Accordingly, the G.D.A. has entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 4 and by order dated 3-9-2019, has also allotted some plots against the land of the respondent No. 4, which was taken by the G.D.A. 10. I. A. No. 11373/2019 has been filed seeking direction to the respondent No. 2 to produce the order dated 29-5-2019 along with record. 11. I. A. No. 5101/2019 has been filed under section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. 12. Challenging the orders dated 28-8-2019 and 3-9-2019, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that initially, an agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and various other owners of the land including the respondent No. 4 whose land had fallen in the Maharajpura Residential Scheme, and thereafter a tripartite agreement was executed amongst the petitioner, G.D.A. and original owners and it was agreed that 25% of the land would be allotted to the petitioner. Thereafter, because of some mistake, the respondent No. 4 entered into an agreement with Gharonda Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited but lateron the respondent No. 4, realized its mistake and accordingly, he cancelled his agreement with Gharonda Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and once again entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 1-9-2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 24-5-2017 to the effect that because of unavoidable reasons, the petitioner has decided to abandon its agreement with G.D.A., therefore, it was prayed that the agreement in respect of Survey No. 388 be cancelled. It is submitted that when the prayer of the petitioner was not accepted, then the petitioner paid Rs. 2,50,000/- on 3-8-2017, Rs. 1,75,000/- on 31-7-2017, and Rs. 8,00,000/- on 25-5-2017 to the respondents No. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the G.D.A. has wrongly entered into an agreement dated 7-6-2019 with the respondent No. 4 and has wrongly allotted developed plots to the respondent No. 4 by order dated 3-9-2019. 2,50,000/- on 3-8-2017, Rs. 1,75,000/- on 31-7-2017, and Rs. 8,00,000/- on 25-5-2017 to the respondents No. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the G.D.A. has wrongly entered into an agreement dated 7-6-2019 with the respondent No. 4 and has wrongly allotted developed plots to the respondent No. 4 by order dated 3-9-2019. It is further submitted that the order dated 20-8-2019 is bad in law and in fact less land has been allotted to the petitioner. 13. Per contra, it is the case of the respondents No. 2 and 3 that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The petitioner itself had abandoned its claim over Survey No. 388. 14. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 15. The petitioner has alleged that forged documents have been filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, whereas the respondents No. 2 and 3 have alleged that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. Lot of disputed questions of facts have been alleged by all the parties, which cannot be decided by this Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. According to the petitioner, initially, it entered into an agreement with respondent No. 4 on 24-12-1997 and thereafter, entered into a tripartite agreement with the GDA and the original owners on 28-12-1997 and thereafter, once again the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 4 on 1-9-2016. Whereas it is the case of the respondents No. 2 to 5 that the petitioner had abandoned its claim over Survey No. 388 therefore, a fresh agreement has been executed between the G.D.A. and respondent No. 4 and developed plots have been allotted to the respondent No. 4. 17. However, one thing is clear that after the notification under section 50(7) of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was issued and Maharajpura Residential Scheme was floated, the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the land, which had fallen in the Maharajpura Residential Scheme and immediately thereafter, a tripartite agreement was executed. 18. Section 53 of Adhiniyam 1973 reads as under : ?53. Restrictions on land use and land development. ? 18. Section 53 of Adhiniyam 1973 reads as under : ?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 authorized by the Director in accordance with the provisions of this Act prior to the publication of such declaration.? Section 56 of Adhiniyam, 1973 reads as under : ?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, proceed to acquire by agreement the land required for the implementation of the scheme and, on its failure so to acquire, the State Government may, at the request of the Town and Country Development Authority, proceed 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.? 19. From the plain reading of section 53 of Adhiniyam, 1973, it is clear that after the scheme is notified, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or building or carry out any development. Further section 56 of Adhiniyam, 1973, clearly provides that the Town and Country Development Authority, within a period of three years from the date of publication of the scheme, may proceed to acquire by agreement the land required for implementation of the scheme, however, on its failure so to acquire, the State Govt. may, at the request of the Town and Country Development Authority, proceed to acquire such land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. may, at the request of the Town and Country Development Authority, proceed to acquire such land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Thus, it is clear that if the Town and Country Development Authority wants to acquire the land by agreement, then it has to do within a period of three years from the date of publication of the Scheme, otherwise, it would be for the State to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 20. In the present case, it appears that a Society was formed, and on 24-12-1997, it entered into an agreement to purchase the land covered by Maharajpura Residential Scheme, with the respondent No. 4 and all other owners (who are the party to the tripartite agreement) and just 4 days thereafter, entered into a tripartite agreement with the G.D.A. and the owners and according to the said tripartite agreement, 25% of the land was to be given to the petitioner in the form of developed plots. Thus, it is clear that although the petitioner Society who had no right or title in the land in question, but still succeeded in grabbing 25% of the total land in the form of developed plots. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 had agreed to sell his land by agreement dated 24-12-1997 and now they have pleaded that in the year 2017 an amount of Rs. 12,25,000/- has been given by them to the respondents No. 4 and 5. Thus, it appears that nothing was paid to the respondent No. 4 on 24-12-1997, when an agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and the Society/petitioner had grabbed the lands of the poor owner by entering into an agreement to purchase and thereafter by entering into a tripartite agreement with the G.D.A. 21. Further, as per the provisions of section 56 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the G.D.A., after three years from the date of publication of the Scheme, could not have acquired the land by entering into an agreement with the owners, because after three years from the date of publication of notification, the land can be acquired only by the State Govt. under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The Scheme in question was notified on 20-1-1989 whereas the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 4 on 24-12-1997 and a tripartite agreement was entered amongst the petitioner, G.D.A. and the original owners on 28-12-1997. Thus, the G.D.A. could not have acquired the land by agreement after expiry of three years from the date of publication of the notification under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Therefore, this act of the G.D.A., clearly shows that in connivance with the petitioner, the officers of the G.D.A. have acted contrary to the provisions of section 56 of Adhiniyam, 1973. 22. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of M. P. and others, reported in 2013(2) M.P.L.J. 707 has held as under : “21. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the development authority within a period of three years from the date of publication of the final scheme, can acquire the land of the scheme from the owner by way of an agreement. Hence, the provisions of section 56 of the Act of 1973 are not applicable in acquisition of the land by the respondent No. 3-Gwalior Development Authority from the Co-operative Society. In our opinion, the officers of the respondent No. 3 and the Co-operative Society have also played fraud in adopting the mode of acquisition. The aforesaid mode of acquisition by taking recourse of section 56 of the Act of 1973 was not applicable in the facts of the case. 22. The Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) Through Director vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 , has held that immovable property can be transferred/conveyed only by deed of conveyance (sale deed) duly stamped and registered as required under the provisions of sections 54, 55, 53-A, 105, 107, 5 and 8 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 56 of the Act is a special provision and it has to be construed strictly.? 23. Further now, the G.D.A. has allotted developed plots to the respondent No. 4 after entering into an agreement with the respondent No. 4 on 7-6-2019 which is also contrary to the provisions of section 56 of Adhiniyam, 1973. Section 56 of the Act is a special provision and it has to be construed strictly.? 23. Further now, the G.D.A. has allotted developed plots to the respondent No. 4 after entering into an agreement with the respondent No. 4 on 7-6-2019 which is also contrary to the provisions of section 56 of Adhiniyam, 1973. Therefore, the agreement dated 7-6-2019 executed between the G.D.A. and the respondent No. 4 shall remain in abeyance. Similarly, the order dated 3-9-2019, by which developed plots have been allotted to the respondent No. 4 shall remain in abeyance, and the possession of the allotted plots shall not be given to the respondent No. 4 and in case if the possession has already been given, then the same shall be taken back immediately. The C.E.O., G.D.A. is directed to submit its report in this regard, to the Principal Registrar of this Court within a period of one month from today. 24. It appears that the petitioner society was formed with an oblique motive. Therefore, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the constitution and functioning of the petitioner society, as provided under section 59 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Registrar, Co-operative Society shall also enquire into the total activities undertaken by the petitioner Society from time to time. It shall also be enquired that whether the petitioner society had followed the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act or not? The Registrar, shall also enquire into the transactions of the lands made by the petitioner society and shall also enquire about the income and expenses of the petitioner society. It shall also enquire as to whether the income of the society was used as per its bye laws or not? It shall also enquire that whether the income of the society was misappropriated by any person/office bearer or not? The Registrar, shall also verify from the bank record of the society, about the payments made by the petitioner to the various owners of the land with whom, it had entered into an agreement to purchase. The Registrar shall also verify that whether the provisions of section 31 to 63-A of the Co-operative Societies Act were followed by the petitioner Society or not? The Registrar shall also verify that whether the provisions of section 31 to 63-A of the Co-operative Societies Act were followed by the petitioner Society or not? The Registrar, Co-operative Societies Act, is directed not to entrust the enquiry to any other officer, but he shall himself conduct the same and shall conclude within period of three months from today. After concluding the enquiry, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies shall proceed further in accordance with the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. He shall also send a copy of the enquiry report to the Principal Registrar of this Court. 25. It is directed that no further acquisition by entering into an agreement with the owner shall be done by the G.D.A. and from today onwards, the G.D.A. shall make a request to the State Govt. to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. If the G.D.A. is of the view that the land belonging to the respondent No. 4 is required for implementation of the Scheme, then it can request the State Govt. to acquire the same under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 26. It is further directed that as per the provisions of section 53 of the Adhiniyam, no person/owner shall change the use of any land or building or carry out any development on the land forming part of Maharajpura Residential Scheme. Any change of use of any land or building or carrying out any development by the owner shall be void. 27. As this Court has already come to a conclusion that the execution of the tripartite agreement dated 28-12-1997 by the G.D.A. with the petitioner and the owners, by which it was agreed to give 25% of the land to the petitioner in the form of developed plots is bad in law, therefore, by maintaining the order dated 28-8-2019 it is directed that if any of the developed plot(s) allotted to the petitioner is/are still lying vacant, then the possession of the same shall be immediately taken back by the G.D.A. In case, the developed plots allotted to the petitioner have already been sold by the petitioner, then the market value of those plots be recovered from the petitioner, and the said amount be paid to the original owners as per their entitlement. Let the entire exercise be done by the G.D.A., within a period of six months from today. Let the entire exercise be done by the G.D.A., within a period of six months from today. The C.E.O., G.D.A. is directed to submit its report to the Principal Registrar of this Court, immediately after expiry of six months. 28. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has held as under : “23. Prima facie, we are of the view that the respondent No. 3 has also acted illegally and act of the officers, who were responsible for the aforesaid act at that time, amounts to criminal act and it is obligatory on the part of appropriate authority to investigate the aforesaid illegalities and if some criminal action is required, then those persons be prosecuted. ***** ***** 25. Consequently, all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, are hereby dismissed. Looking to the facts of the case, the Economic Offence Wing, State of M. P. is directed to investigate the matter and if it is found that any person as involved in any illegal activities which amounts to commission of offence, then he would be prosecuted. The authority may investigate the matter independently without getting influenced by the observations made in this order. No order as to costs.” 29. In the present case, this Court has come to a conclusion, that in connivance with the officers of the Gwalior Development Authority, the poor persons who were the original owners of the land, were cheated and undue advantage has been given to the petitioner society. Therefore, the S.P.E. (Lokayukt) is directed to register the F.I.R. and investigate the matter and if it is found that any person was involved in any illegal activity, which amounts to commission of offence, then he would be prosecuted. The role of the officers of GDA shall also be investigated. The investigating agency is directed to investigate the matter independently, without getting prejudiced by any of the observation made by this Court in this Order. The investigation be completed within a period of six months from today and S.P.E. (Lokayukt) shall also send a copy of the report to the Principal Registrar of this Court, immediately after expiry of six months. 30. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, S.P.E. (Lokayukt), Bhopal for necessary information and compliance. 31. 30. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, S.P.E. (Lokayukt), Bhopal for necessary information and compliance. 31. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for necessary information and compliance. 32. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the C.E.O., Gwalior Development Authority, for necessary information and compliance. 33. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.