Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 570 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Nilesh Jain

2022-04-07

ANIL VERMA, VIVEK RUSIA

body2022
JUDGMENT Both the Writ Appeals are being decided by this common order as the similar issue regarding change of land use of the respondents after the publication of Master Plan 2011 for Indore city is involved in both the writ appeals. Facts of W. A. No. 952/2018 The appellant/State of Madhya Pradesh and Director of Town and Country Planning Department has filed WA No.952/2018 against the Order dated 13.4.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1896/2013 whereby appellant No.1 has been directed to designate ‘'' the land in question'' of the respondents (writ petitioners) for from recreational purpose to residential use. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under: - 1. Appellant No.2, Director, Town and Country Planning ( In short' T&CP') prepared a Draft Development Plan for the forthcoming 'Indore Master Plan 2021' in terms of section 14 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as '' Adhiniyam, 1973”) and published in the M.P. Gazette on 13.7.2006. After the publication of the draft plan a committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 invited objections and suggestions from the general public/ impacted landowners. The respondents are the owner of land bearing Survey No.26/2, 27, 28, 29/3, 29/5, 29/2/K, 29/2/K, 30/2 and 31/2 total area of 1.874 hectares situated in the village Pipliarao, Tehsil and District Indore (hereinafter referred to as '' the land in question''). In the Draft Plan, since the land in question was earmarked for residential purposes, therefore, the respondents had no reason or occasion to raise any objection in respect of land use before the committee. The recommendation of the committee along with comments of the Director T&CP was forwarded to the State Government for final approval under section 19 of the Adhiniyam,1973. After the approval of the State Government, the final plan ' Indore Master Plan 2021' was published in the M.P. Gazette on 1.1.2008 under section 19(5) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 2. The respondents came to know that the land in question has been designated/ reserved for 'City Park' i.e. ‘Recreational’ purposes in the final Master Plan. After the approval of the State Government, the final plan ' Indore Master Plan 2021' was published in the M.P. Gazette on 1.1.2008 under section 19(5) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 2. The respondents came to know that the land in question has been designated/ reserved for 'City Park' i.e. ‘Recreational’ purposes in the final Master Plan. The respondents have challenged the aforesaid action by way W.P. No.1299/2008 which was disposed of along with others bunch of Writ Petitions vide order dated 17.6.2008 with direction to all landowners to submit an objection as required under section 19(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and the State Government has been directed to consider all the objection and pass appropriate order in this regard. It has also been observed that if objections filed by the landowners are accepted by the Government, then the requisite amendment in the final Development Plan, 2021 shall be carried out, and consequently notified as well. The State Government filed a Review Petition of the aforesaid order, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.11.2008. Thereafter, State Government preferred a bunch of Writ Appeal No.805/2009. The Division Bench of this Court has modified the order of the learned Writ Court and directed the Government of M.P. to constitute a committee under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 to consider the cases, at the stage of section 18(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, The State Government preferred Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. (s).22768/2010 which has been dismissed on 20.5.2010. The apex Court has declined to interfere with the order of the Writ Court as it was passed with the consent of the parties. 3. After the dismissal of the SLP, the State Government had no option but to constitute a committee as contemplated under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam. The 15 members committee has considered all the objections and forwarded its report to the Director T&CP. As per the report, out of 15 members, 11 members have recommended changing the land use of the respondents to residential . Along with the report, the Director, T & CP has sent its comments recommending to keep the land used for recreation purposes. As per the report, out of 15 members, 11 members have recommended changing the land use of the respondents to residential . Along with the report, the Director, T & CP has sent its comments recommending to keep the land used for recreation purposes. The Government of M.P. vide order dated 27.8.2010 has decided that the land in question shall remain ' Recreational' as the Director has given a proper reason for rejection of the recommendation of the Committee. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the respondents have filed this Writ Petition No.1896/2013 before this Court. Vide order dated 13.4.2018, the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petition by placing reliance on the judgment passed in W.P.2785/2016 (Ghanshyamdas Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.). The Hon’ble Writ Court has held that the surrounding area of the land in question has already been developed as residential, hence, the land in question which is also surrounded by the aforesaid area cannot be treated as Regional Park in the development plan, 2021. The recommendation of the committee has wrongly been ignored by the Government, hence, the impugned order dated 27.8.2012 deserves to be quashed and Government has been directed to pass an appropriate order designating the land use of the petitioner as residential. Facts of W. A. No. 953 of 2018 4. The appellant/State of Madhya Pradesh and Director of Town and Country Planning Department has filed this appeal against the final order dated 24.4.2018 passed in W.P. No.19670/2017 whereby the order dated 20.3.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, Housing & Environment Department has been set aside. 5. Respondent No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 that owns the land admeasuring about 130 acres in Bijalpur area, Indore. The company purchased the aforesaid land mostly in the year 2006-08 for the development of a residential township. 6. According to the respondents, out of the aforesaid total land, 15.864 hectares of land (39.200 acres) was earlier earmarked for residential use in Indore Development Plan, 2021 published on 13.7.2006, thereafter a Committee under section 17(2) of the Adhiniyam was constituted to consider the objections and send the recommendation to the Government. As the land of the respondents was already shown as residential, therefore, they did not file any objection. 7. As the land of the respondents was already shown as residential, therefore, they did not file any objection. 7. According to the respondents the Government of Madhya Pradesh has established a Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation Limited ( in short 'TRIFAC'). The respondents submitted their project of Rs.2,000 crores of Residential Township, Multiplex, IT Park etc on the land in question. The said project has been in-principle approved by the TRIFAC. 8. The respondents came to know that the land in question has been designated for “Public and Semi-Public” in the final Master Plan 2021. Against which, a large number of writ petitions were preferred by the identically placed persons, meaning thereby, in those cases where the land use was shown to be 'Residential' under the Draft Development Plan but changed while publishing a final development plan. The writ Court has passed an order in W.P. No.1153/2007 on 17.6.2008 directing the appellants to hear all the objections and to pass a reasoned order within three months. The appellants preferred Writ Appeal No.180/2009, vide order dated 18.2.2010, the Writ Appeal has been dismissed by directing the appellants to constitute a committee under section 17(A) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and to decide the objections raised by the landowners. Against the order dated 18.2.2010, the State Government has preferred SLP No.22768/2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.8.2010. The respondents submitted an objection and appeared on 12.10.2010. Vide order dated 27.8.2012, the appellants have rejected the objections. Against the order dated 27.8.2012, the respondents preferred W.P. No.7577/2012. Vide order dated 29.09.2012, this Court has set aside the order passed by appellant directing them to pass a speaking order afresh. The respondents have preferred an application under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 seeking a change of the land use to 'Residential'. The appellants have finally passed the order dated 26.6.2017 rejecting the claim of the respondents. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 9. The learned Writ Court, vide order dated 24.4.2018 has allowed the writ petition relying on the judgment passed in the case of Ghanshyamdas Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (W.P. No.2857/2016 decided on 19.4.2017) and in the case of Nilesh Jain & Others v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No.4896/2013). 9. The learned Writ Court, vide order dated 24.4.2018 has allowed the writ petition relying on the judgment passed in the case of Ghanshyamdas Sanghi Memorial Charitable Trust v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another (W.P. No.2857/2016 decided on 19.4.2017) and in the case of Nilesh Jain & Others v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No.4896/2013). The Writ Court has also observed that the expert committee constituted by the State Government has recommended keeping the land as 'Residential', the Government has wrongly ignored the aforesaid recommendation. The entire area of land in question is surrounded by a residential township. The permission has been granted by TRIFAC based upon the Foreign Direct Investment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State Government, as well as the Director of T&CP, have preferred this Writ Appeal no 953/2018. Submissions of the appellants / State 10. Shri Pushya Mitra Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Hon’ble Writ Court has wrongly been held that the recommendation given by the committee has wrongly been ignored by the State Government while passing the impugned order. The committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 has been given the power to hear the objection and suggest modifications or alterations in the draft plan. The role of the committee is to give only recommendations and it does not have any directory value. It is for the Government to accept the report or not. No writ of mandamus can be issued to the State to accept the recommendation which has no binding force. 11. It is further submitted that once the final master plan 2021 has been approved and notified by the State Government under section 19 of the Adhiniyam,1973 then the same can be modified/reviewed only under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam,1973. The Writ Court instead of issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to change the land use, the respondents should have been directed to submit an application for review and modification of the development plan. In fact, the respondents have already filed an application under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam,1973 which is still pending. The Writ Court instead of issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to change the land use, the respondents should have been directed to submit an application for review and modification of the development plan. In fact, the respondents have already filed an application under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam,1973 which is still pending. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Binabai Bhate v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 (13) SCC 32 in which so far the review and modifications of the development plan or adjoining plan as provided in section 23 and 23A of the Act are concerned, the High Court does not have the power of review as such power of review has to be specifically provided for in the Act. He has also placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Subhash Singhania v. State of M.P. 2005 (1) MPHT 192 (DB) in which the High Court has held that Director, Town and Country Planning was empowered to review the master plan or Zoning plan. The State Government is the only authority under section 23-A to review or modify the master plan. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & another (2018) 2 MPLJ 449 in which the Full Bench has answered question No.2 by holding that the High Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority and determine as to whether the person concerned is fit for appointment, at the most the High Court after quashing the order can remit the matter back to the authority concerned for reconsideration or fresh consideration as to the eligibility of the person, therefore, in the present case instead of issuing writ /direction to the State to change the land use, the High Court ought to have directed State Government to consider and pass the order under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam,1973. Shri Bhargava, Additional Advocate General further submitted that the learned Writ Court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgment passed in Ghanshyamdas (supra) which was passed on different facts and circumstances. Shri Bhargava, Additional Advocate General further submitted that the learned Writ Court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgment passed in Ghanshyamdas (supra) which was passed on different facts and circumstances. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside or liable to be modified to the extent directing the State Government to exercise the power under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam,1973. Learned Additional Advocate General concluded his arguments by submitting that the respondents purchased the land in question despite knowing that it is reserved for Recreation purpose in the Master Plan 2011 hence cannot claim right to own property, prays for dismissal of Writ Petition by setting aside impugned order passed by Hon’ble writ Court. Submissions of the respondents / Writ Petitioners 12. Per contra Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment by submitting that this Court has already given the opportunity to the State Government to consider the objection of the Committee under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 but instead of complying the said direction, the State Government approached Writ Appellate Court as well as Supreme Court, therefore, it is clear that the Government is adamant in not considering the case of the respondent, therefore, this Court has rightly exercised the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the Government to change the land use. It is correct that only under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam the Government can change the land use and modify the Master Plan and if Government passes any order in compliance with the order passed by this Court that would be under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam,1973. For that, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside or modified. In support of this contention, Shri Gupta learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 in which the apex Court has held that it is a common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. The above opinion of the Supreme Court of India has been followed in Siemens Ltd State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 33 , V.K. Ashokan v. CCE, (2009) 14 SCC 85 . The above opinion of the Supreme Court of India has been followed in Siemens Ltd State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 33 , V.K. Ashokan v. CCE, (2009) 14 SCC 85 . Shri Gupta learned Senior Counsel submitted that under the Master Plan 1991, the land use was shown as PSP. The Draft Plan 2021 was published on 13.7.2006 and the purpose of land use was shown as Residential hence the respondent did not submit any objection. Since the land was already shown as residential in the Draft Plan therefore there was no occasion for the respondents to submit any objection before the Committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam but thereafter without following the procedure under section 19 of the Adhiniyam,1973 the State Government has finalized the plan, otherwise, the respondents would have submitted an objection under section 19(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 13. Shri Gupta, learned Senior counsel further argued that after the publication of the Draft Plan, a committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 invited and heard the objection and made the certain suggestion. In the first round, the respondents had no occasion to submit an objection because the land was already reserved for residential but after remand by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.805/2009 again the 15 members Committee comprising, Members of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly, Architect, Town Planner etc. have opined that since the remaining part of the land in question, the State Government has given permission for construction of hostel then it would be proper to reserve the land in question for residential purpose. In terms of section 18(2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 along with the report of the Committee, the Director, T&CP has sent its opinion that the permission for construction of the hostel in the green belt area was against the rules, therefore, this land in question cannot be used for residential purpose. Thereafter, the State Government has wrongly passed the General order on 26.7.2012 stating in para 6 that Government is satisfied that the Director has given appropriate reasons for rejecting the recommendations of the Committee. 14. It is further submitted that recently the Regional Park has been developed on 42 Hectare land which is just 5000 meters away from the subject land, therefore, there is a requirement of blocking the land of the respondents for 'Recreational' purpose. 14. It is further submitted that recently the Regional Park has been developed on 42 Hectare land which is just 5000 meters away from the subject land, therefore, there is a requirement of blocking the land of the respondents for 'Recreational' purpose. The adjacent lands in the neighborhoods bearing survey No.21/1/1, 22/1/1, 23/2m, 24/2m, 25 and 26/1/1 has been released from ' Recreational' use and the owners were allowed to construct School and Hostel building. Therefore, the remaining land of the respondents cannot be used for City Park as the minimum area for the park i.e. 7.5 hectares of land is not available at the site. 15. Shri Gupta learned senior counsel has placed reliance on Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sadhu reported in (2019) 2 SCC 241 in which the Supreme Court of India has held that primarily, ownership imports the right of exclusive possession and the enjoyment of the thing owned. The owner in possession of the thing has the right to exclude all others from its possession and enjoyment. The right to ownership of property carries with it the right to its enjoyment, right to its access and other beneficial enjoyments incidental to it. 16. According to Shri Gupta learned senior counsel in the case of Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan reported in (1986) 2 SCC 679 the Supreme Court of India has held that in all such cases and any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422 it is held that it is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In the case of Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422 it is held that it is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. We have already heard the writ appeal No. 1173/2018 filed by the appellants against the order dated 19.04.2017 passed in W.P. No. 2785/2016 (GHANSHYAMDAS SANGHI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS STATE OF M.P.). At the very outset, we would like to clarify that the facts of the present writ appeals are altogether different from the facts of the case of Ghanshyamdas Sanghi (supra) which has been decided on different facts and circumstances. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the respondents are the owner of the land in master plan 1975, which was declared as PSP, thereafter, the Draft Plan 2021 was published on 13.07.2006 and the purpose of land was shown as residential. On the basis of the aforesaid plan, the respondents purchased the land in question from 2006 onwards. Since the land use was shown as residential, therefore, respondents did not need to submit an objection before the Committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. But after the final publication of the Draft Plan, the land use has been changed to 'Recreational'' purpose i.e. other than residential, which gave cause to action to the respondents to file a writ petition before this Court. While considering the Writ Petitions, this Court found that the State Government has finalized the plan without following the procedure prescribed under section 19 of the Adhiniyam,1973 therefore, the matter has been remanded back to the State Government at the stage of 19 of the Adhiniyam,1973 with the direction to decide the objection. The State Government did not satisfy the aforesaid order of writ court hence challenged it by way of writ appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has held that before considering the objection of the respondents by the State Government, it would be proper to remand the matter to the stage of consideration of objections by the committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The Division Bench of this Court has held that before considering the objection of the respondents by the State Government, it would be proper to remand the matter to the stage of consideration of objections by the committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The State Government was not satisfied with the aforesaid order, preferred an SLP and that has been dismissed, therefore, the Government had no option but to consider all the objections of landowners by the Committee under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 18. Fifteen members Committee has been constituted to consider the objection. Out of fifteen members, eleven members of the Committee recommended retaining the use of land in question as residential. It is correct that role of the committee under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 is to hear objections and suggest modifications or alterations if any to the Director T&CP. under sub section 3 of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, the Director within 30 days of the receipt of the plan and other documents from the Committee submitted all the documents and plans along with his comments, to the State Government. In the present case by way of comments, Director has submitted its disagreement with the opinion or recommendation of the committee for the land in question. After receipt of the Draft Plan, recommendations of the Committee and comments sent by the Director, the State Government under section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 may either approve the development plan or may approve it with such modifications as it may consider necessary or may return it to the Director to modify same or to prepare a fresh plan. Where the State Government approves the development with modifications, the State Government shall, by a notice published in the Gazette, invite objections and suggestions. In the present cases in the draft plan, the land use was shown as residential and the Committee has recommended keeping the land use as residential but the Director has shown disagreement, therefore, under section 19 (2) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, the State Government should have issued notice for inviting objection and suggestion before finalizing Master Plan under section 19(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, The Master Plan shall come into operation from the date of publication of the said notice in the Gazette under sub-section (4). This procedure has been approved by the apex Court in the case Binabai Bhate (supra). This procedure has been approved by the apex Court in the case Binabai Bhate (supra). 19. The State Government for deciding all the cases sent by the Director T&CP has categorized all the cases into four categories i.e. A, B,C, & D. A- where the Government agreed with the Directed and rejected the case of the landowners seeking a change of land use. B- where the Director recommends a change and the Government also agrees. C- where the Director and the Committee do not recommend any change but the Government disagree with them and recommends a change. D- Where the Committee and the Director do not recommend any change but the State Government makes a change The case of the respondents has been kept in cat.'A' where the Government has agreed with the director's opinion and rejected the same. Under category 'A' all the cases were included in which State Government has accepted the comments/opinion of the Director T&CP as appropriate reasons for rejecting the recommendation of the Committee are assigned. In the impugned order the Government has only submitted a list of all the cases of landowners like respondents categories wise A to D in the tabular form. No other material has been produced before this Court or supplied to the respondents as to what was the opinion /objection given by the Director and why the Government has accepted it or rejected the recommendation of the Committee as the case may be. There were as many as 600 cases before the State Government, but every individual was concerned about his own land, they have the right to know why in his case the recommendation of the committee has been turned down by the Government because of the reservation /designation of the land use in the master plan, the landowners would not be in a position to use his land for their choices. 20. After the publication of the plan, it can be modified or reviewed only under section 23-A (b) on an application from any person. Once the development plan has been filed, it can be modified only under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, by the State Government and such modification shall be an integral part of the revised plan. Rule 15 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 2012 provides the complete procedure for applying by the owner of the land. Once the development plan has been filed, it can be modified only under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, by the State Government and such modification shall be an integral part of the revised plan. Rule 15 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 2012 provides the complete procedure for applying by the owner of the land. It is true that after the publication of the Draft Plan, and thereafter the final development plan in the year 2008, more than 13 years have been passed in this litigation. Neither the land in question could be used for residential purposes nor developed for recreational purposes by the Government. If Government wants to use the land in question for recreation purposes then Government should have acquired the land under section 34 of Adhiniyam,1973. The Government has rendered the land useless by designating it for recreational purposes only on paper without developing it. In the present case, nearby lands have been developed for residential purposes with or without permission from the competent authority of the appellants. The Government has neither acquired the land nor removed illegal construction to make it useable for recreational purposes. Looking to a practical point of view the small piece of land surrendered by the residential area cannot be used for recreational purposes, especially when within a five-meter distance a huge park has been developed by the Indore Development Authority by spending crores of rupees, therefore, in the Draft Plan, this land was rightly reserved for residential purpose. The statutory Committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 has also recommended that it should be retained for residential purposes, therefore, the Government has wrongly accepted the recommendation of the Director without assigning any reason. Under section 18 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 can only send its comments to the Government along with the Draft Plan and recommendations of the Committee, thereafter the State is required to apply its mind independently in each and every case. 21. Since under section 19 (4) of the Adhiniyam,1973 the Master Plan 2021 for Indore has been finalized and published, therefore, any modification in the plan can be done only under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 2012 and that can be done only by the State Government. The Writ Court instead of issuing of the writ to the Government for changing the use of the land in question ought to have directed the State Government to pass the order under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 on the pending application of the respondents or directing them to submit an application under Rule 14 as the case may be . 22. The case of Ghanshyamdas Sanghi..(Supra) is different from these cases as in the case the land owned by the Trust had already been deleted from the earlier development plan by the Government in the exercise of power under section 35 of the Adhiniyam,1973 and despite that it was again reserved for other than residential purposes, hence we have upheld the order of writ court and dismissed the writ appeal 1173/2018 filed by the appellants. 23. In the case of Binabai Bhate v. State of M.P., reported in (2011) 13 SCC 32 Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has considered the scope of section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and has held as under :- 17.So far the power of review is concerned, the High Court does not have the power of review as such power of review has to be specifically provided for in the Act. A power of review against an order passed is a creature of the statute and since no such power of review is provided for under the provisions of the Act, the High Court was justified in holding that there could be no review to the order passed. So far the review and modifications of the development plan or adjoining plan as provided in sections 23 and 23-A of the Act are concerned, the said provisions are not applicable in the present case for the State Government has not made any modification in the development plan, and therefore, the contentions appearing for the appellant are held to be without any merit. Besides, the said power is exclusively vested with the State Government and in an appropriate case, the State Government is empowered to exercise such power as and when deemed proper. This is not a case where the State Government thought it fit to invoke such power. 24. Besides, the said power is exclusively vested with the State Government and in an appropriate case, the State Government is empowered to exercise such power as and when deemed proper. This is not a case where the State Government thought it fit to invoke such power. 24. In view of the above, both the Writ appeals are partly allowed, the impugned orders passed in respective Writ Petitions are modified to the extent that the appellant No.1/ Government of M.P. shall consider the application of the writ petitioner under section 23-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973 for changing the designation of ''the land in question'' from 'recreational purpose' to 'residential' as per law and as discussed above within 60 days from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this order. Both the Writ Appeals are disposed of to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.