JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 04/04/2019 passed by respondent no. 1, by which the application for development permission submitted by the petitioners for commercial purpose of their land situated at 8/2/1, Race Course Road, Indore ( Old nos. 52 & 38/1 of survey no. 120/2/2, Palasia Hana, Indore) has been refused on the ground that as per the Chapter 3, Clause 3.1 of the Development Plan-2021, it has been provided that the land reserved in the Development Plan-1991 for recreational purpose are kept intact in the Development Plan 2021. 2. The facts of the case are that the land admeasuring 390' X 400' = 156000 sq.ft (i.e. 152250 sq ft after rounding up of the plot bearing survey no. 120/2/2 of Palasia Hana, Indore was owned by Sir Siremal Bafna ( the then Prime Minister of the Holkar State) known as Bafna kothi. Thereafter in the year 1948, itself Sir Siremal Bafna divided the said plots in two blocks i.e. Block no.- A was given to his son Shri K.M. Bafna and Block no. B was given to his other son Shri P.S. Bafna Houses were constructed on both the blocks after getting permissions from the Municipal Authorities. On or about 10/11/1959, Shri P.S. Bafna sold the Block no. B along with constructed houses to Mohta brothers ( petitioners no. 1 and 2) by two registered sale deeds and now the petitioner no. 3 has purchased the said property. That, in the year 1971-72, while preparing Development Plan- 1991 ( Master Plan-1991) in the sheets of existing land use, the existing land use of the entire land was shown as residential. However, in the yar 1975, when the Master Plan 1991 was published, the land use of the aforesaid land was mistekenly shown as Park and PSP. Thereafter, on 09/12/1998, the State Government passed an order under section 35 of the Adhiniyam, whereby the land use of the said land was determined as residential and according to law, the said land use became the part of the Master Plan- 1991. Thereafter, on or about 05/12/2002, the State Government by notification had again changed the land use to commercial. In the year 2006, while preparing Development Plan -2021 on 01/01/2008, certain discrepancies/difficulties had arisen. Hence the respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 10/07/2009 addressed to the respondent no. Thereafter, on or about 05/12/2002, the State Government by notification had again changed the land use to commercial. In the year 2006, while preparing Development Plan -2021 on 01/01/2008, certain discrepancies/difficulties had arisen. Hence the respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 10/07/2009 addressed to the respondent no. 1 and the Municipal Commissioner thereby, clarifying that all development permissions have to be granted according to the Master Plan 2021 and the same instructions were repeated by vide letter dated 06/04/2009, 19/11/2012 and 20/09/2013. That, ultimately in the year 2013 to remove all confusions and difficulties with regard to implementation of Master Plan 2021, the State Government constituted a High Level Committee. The said High Level Committee in its meeting dated 28/09/2013 has considered various aspects and the case of the petitioner was specifically considered at item no. 6. The Committee unanimously has held that in the Master Plan-1991 in the existing land use map on the land use of the land in question was shown as residential but in the Master Plan 1991 by mistake, it was maintained as recreational. The High Court Level Committee has further held that in the Master Plan 2021, the designated land use of the said land is commercial. It has also been held that on the nearby lands commercial activities are being done. It has further been held that the provision of clause 3.1 of the Master Plan shall not apply to the present case. Lastly, it has been concluded that the land use of the land in question according to the Master plan 2021 is commercial, therefore,no change or amendment is required. The petitioners accordingly made a request to the State Government, and repeated the same that the land use of the said land is commercial and the petitioners are entitled to get development permission accordingly. Thereafter, an application seeking development permission of the said land was made to respondent no. 1 on or about 29/03/2016. The said application was filed after complying with all requirements. The said application remained pending without any refusal or grant nor was any information or documents were asked from the petitioner, hence the permission is deemed to have been granted after 60 days as per the provisions of section 30(5) of the Adhiniyam. 1 on or about 29/03/2016. The said application was filed after complying with all requirements. The said application remained pending without any refusal or grant nor was any information or documents were asked from the petitioner, hence the permission is deemed to have been granted after 60 days as per the provisions of section 30(5) of the Adhiniyam. After the decision of High Level Committee, the issue with regard to land use i.e. commercial and non-application of Clause 3.1 of the Master Plan was finally settled and JDTCP also repeatedly reiterated and reaffirmed that the land use is commercial sought direction from JDTCp vide various letters. It was also reiterated that the land use is commercial. Because of inaction of the respondents, the petitioners filed Writ Petition no. 12974/2018. During pendency of the said writ petition, respondent no. 3 directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide the application in according to law. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 07/09/2018 directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to decide the matter within 45 days. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondents with certified copy of the said order and repeatedly requested to grant development permission alongwith certified copy of the order. However, as the respondents failed to decide the application within a period of 45 days, therefore, the petitioners filed CONC no. 374/2019 was filed before this Court. After getting several opportunities to file reply in the said contempt petition, the respondent has issued a letter/order dated 04/04/2019, whereby refusing development permission on wholly untenable ground that as the land use has been park/PSP in the development plan 1991 and the same has to be continued in Development Plan- 2021. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is illegal and arbitrary. In the year 1971-72, in the process of preparing Development Plan-1991, the sheets of existing land use were prepared wherein the existing land use of the entire land was shown as residential. However, in the year 1975, when the Master Plan-1991 was published, the land use of the aforesaid land was mistakenly shown as park and PSP. In the year 1971-72, in the process of preparing Development Plan-1991, the sheets of existing land use were prepared wherein the existing land use of the entire land was shown as residential. However, in the year 1975, when the Master Plan-1991 was published, the land use of the aforesaid land was mistakenly shown as park and PSP. Thereafter, on 09/12/1998, the State Government passed an order under section 35 of the Adhiniyam, whereby the land use of the sad land was determined as residential and according to the law, the land use has become part of the Master Plan-2021. Thereafter, on or about 05/12/2002, the State Government by notification again changed the land use to commercial. He frther submits that in the year 2006, the process of preparing Development Plan 2021 was started. In the draft plan as well as in the final plan, the land use of the land in question was proposed and finalized as commercial by showing the same in blue colour. Thereafter, for removing all the difficulties and confusions, with regard to the implementation of Master Plan- 2021, the State Government constituted High Level Committee. An dthe Hgh Level Committee in its meeting dated 28/09/2013 has considered various aspects and the case of the petitioners was considered at item no. 6. The Committee unanimously held that in the the Master Plan 1991, the existing land ue map or the land ue of the land I question was shown as residential, but in the Master Plan-1991, by mistake, it was mentioned as recretional. The High Level Committee has further held that in the Master Plan- 2021, the designated land use of the said land is commercial. It has also been held that on the nearby lands, commercial activities are being done. The High Level Committee has specifically held that the provision of Clause-3.1 of the Master Plan shall not apply to the present case. Thus, he submits that the High Level Committee and respondent no. 1 have repea accepted that the land use of the said land is undisputedly commercial. The petitioners, therefore, submitted na application under section 30 of the Adhiniyam for grant of development permission of the saidland. The said application was remained undecided. 4. He has further relied upon section 30 of the Adhiniyam. 1 have repea accepted that the land use of the said land is undisputedly commercial. The petitioners, therefore, submitted na application under section 30 of the Adhiniyam for grant of development permission of the saidland. The said application was remained undecided. 4. He has further relied upon section 30 of the Adhiniyam. As per the Clause-5 of the Adhiniyam, if the Director does not communicate his decision whether grant or refuse permission to the 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. Relying on this provision, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, the respondents have failed to decide his application within a period of sixty days, therefore, permission is deemed to be granted. He further submits that after coming into force of the Development Plan, all development has been according to the Development Plan. In other words, that neither any development can be done contrary to the Development Plan nor the Authorities can refuse any permission, if sought in conformity with the Development Plan. In that regard, he has relied upon sections 25 and 26 of the Adhiniyam He further submits that while rejecting his application, the respondents have relied upon Clause- 3.1 of the Master Plan, However, the High Level Committee has decided the issue with regard to the land use i.e. commercial and non-application of Clause-3.1 of the Master Plan, therefore, on this ground, the respondents should not have rejected his application. In view of the aforesaid, present petition deserves to be allowed. 5. The respondents in their reply contrary to their own stand and opinion have stated that inview of the land use shown in the Master Plan-9191, the same would continue and the development permission for commercial purpose cannot be granted in view of the Clause-3.1 of the Master Plan-2021 and supported the impugned order. The respondents have also stated that an alternate remedy is available. It is notable that the respondents have not denied or disputed that in the Master Plan-1991, the existing land use was residential, but in the final Plan, it was wrongly shown as Park/PSP. The respondents have also stated that an alternate remedy is available. It is notable that the respondents have not denied or disputed that in the Master Plan-1991, the existing land use was residential, but in the final Plan, it was wrongly shown as Park/PSP. It has also not been disputed that the land use was changed by the State Government under section 35, which became the part of the Master Plan 1991Z. It has also not been disputed that the respondents themselves have repeatedly taken a stand and have held that the land use of the land in question is commercial and Clause-3.1 of the Master Plan-2021 does not apply in the present case. The respondents did not dispute that agreeing to this position have clearly stated before this Court that the respondent no. 1 is ready to consider grant of development permission for commercial purpose. Hence it is clear that the stand and ground on which the development permission refused, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, hence in such a situation alleged, the ground of alternate remedy is not maintainable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. In the present case, following questions are involved for decision before this Court. (i) Whether the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning ( for short 'JDTCP' ) can refuse to grant development permission for the purpose which is designated under the Development Plan ( Master Plan ), when there is mandatory provision under section 25 o the Adhiniyam ( M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973) to grant permission in accordance with the master Plan? (ii) Whether the JDTCP can overlook the decision/direction of the Director Town & Country Planning (for shot 'DTCP) and the State Government and his own finding and can refuse development permission on the ground which does not exit and is also contrary to law? (iii) Whether the JDTCP having made a declaration before this Court in earlier writ petition that he is going to consider the grant of development permission for commercial purpose, can turn around and refuse to grant permission for commercial purpose? (iv) Whether the JDTCP can refuse to grant permission for commercial purpose to the land in question, which is a part of total land and development permission for the other part has already been granted for commercial purpose? 8. Regarding question no. (iv) Whether the JDTCP can refuse to grant permission for commercial purpose to the land in question, which is a part of total land and development permission for the other part has already been granted for commercial purpose? 8. Regarding question no. 1, Section 25 of the Adhiniyam provides that after coming into force of the development plan, the use and development shall confirm to the provisions of the development plan. In the year 1971-72, while preparing development Plan 1991 ( Master Plan- 1991), in the sheets of existing land use, the existing land use of the entire land was shown as residential . However, in the year 1975, when the Master Plan 1991 was published, the land use of the aforesaid land was mistakenly shown as Park and PSP. Thereafter, on 09/12/1998, the State Government passed an order under section 35 of the Adhiniyam, whereby the land use of the said land was determined as residential and according the law, the said land use became the part of the master Plan-1991. Thereafter, on or about 05/12/2002, the State Government by notification had again changed the land use to commercial. While preparing development plan-2021 in the year 2006, in the draft plan as well as in the final plan, the land use of the land in question was proposed and finalized as commercial by showing the same in blue colour and now as the land use of the said land is commercial, therefore, development permission cannot be refused to the petitioner on the ground that the land use in the Master Plan has been shown as Park and PSP. The High Level Committee in its meeting dated 28/09/2013 has considered various aspects. As per section 25 of the Adhiniyam, if any application has been submitted for development permission in accordance with the Development Plan, then the same should be allowed. 9. Regarding question no. 2 : In the present case, the land use of the said land was changed to the commercial purpose by the State Government as well as the JDTCP again over-ruled or revised the decision taken by the State Government. 10. Regarding question no. 9. Regarding question no. 2 : In the present case, the land use of the said land was changed to the commercial purpose by the State Government as well as the JDTCP again over-ruled or revised the decision taken by the State Government. 10. Regarding question no. 3 : In the present case, JDTCP has made declaration before this Court in earlier writ petition that he is going to consider granting of development permission for commercial purpose, now turn around, to refuse grant of permission for commercial purpose when the land use has already been changed by the State Government. The order dated 04/04/2019, by which development permission was refused by applying Clause 3.1 of the Development Plan is also illegal, because the High Level Committee in its meeting has also held that Clause-3.1 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. It is further to be seen that the petitioner has submitted an application seeing development permission of the said land on or about 29/03/2016. The said application is pending without any refusal or grant, nor information or documents were asked from the petitioner, therefore, in view of section 30(5) of the Adhiniyam, the permission is deemed to be granted. 11. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, permission for commercial purpose has been given to other part of the land, while same has been refused to the petitioner on extraneous ground. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04/04/2019 is hereby set aside and it is directed to the respondent/s to grant development permission to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. C c as per rules.