ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally on 20.9.2023 and today the order is being pronounced. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.1.2023 (AnnexureP/14) passed by respondent No.3. 3. To unravel the controversy, the necessary facts in compendium are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973. The respondents are also the State as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such amenable to writ jurisdiction. The petitioner-Society purchased a plot bearing No.B-7/51 situated at Shahpura District Bhopal and as such got demarcated by respondent No.5/Bhopal Development Authority (in short “BDA”). The demarcation certificate was issued on 25.11.1999 (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner-Society wanted to open a School for imparting primary education and as such, applied for sanction. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 15.3.2004 granted sanction to the petitioner-Society. BDA has also granted lease to the petitioner-Society for building purpose vide lease-deed of year 2008. The possession certificate was also issued on 4.6.2008 in favour of the petitioner-Society. According to the petitioner-Society, they have completed all necessary requirements and fulfilled the formalities. BDA also granted building permission after carrying out the inspection and permitted the petitioner to construct the building under rule 27 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 (for brevity “Rules, 2012”). Although respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.12.2022 without giving any opportunity of hearing ordered the petitioner to stop the already started construction on the said land and the Corporation has also sent a letter asking status of the property from BDA. The Corporation has also started harassing the petitioner by taking away the electric connection and as such, the construction which was being carried out by the petitioner was stopped and they filed reply to the order/notice dated 20.12.2022 raising ground therein that although the order was passed under Section 307(4) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, but no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. BDA after conducting enquiry, submitted the details about the status of the property and also the documents related thereto. Thereafter, the order dated 20.12.2022 was quashed by order dated 9.1.2023 and then the petitioner again started construction over the property. Such information was also conveyed to respondent No.4. BDA after conducting enquiry, submitted the details about the status of the property and also the documents related thereto. Thereafter, the order dated 20.12.2022 was quashed by order dated 9.1.2023 and then the petitioner again started construction over the property. Such information was also conveyed to respondent No.4. However, again vide order dated 18.1.2023 issued by respondent No.3 asking the petitioner to stop the construction, but this time also no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Respondent No.3 has also revoked the building permission given on 29.11.2022 under the provisions of rule 25 of the Rules, 2012. The reason for revocation of building permission was a complaint dated 12.1.2023 made by Shahpura Colony House Owners’ Association, Bhopal in which it was stated that the layout plan dated 26.6.1995 contained the land use of the said property which is situated in front of lake and as such building permission can not be granted. According to respondent No.3 it is in violation of rules 7 and 35 of Rules, 2012. The said letter of Municipal Corporation has given rise to filing of this petition and also for assailing the action taken by Corporation. 4. The challenge is made basically on the ground that the building permission was granted after completing all requisite formalities and inspection as per rule 27 of the Rules, 2012. As per the petitioner, the action of the respondent-Corporation is purely illegal while granting permission for construction, which was refused later-on without giving any opportunity of hearing. As per the petitioner, rule 29 of the Rules, 2012 clearly provides that if any shortcoming is pointed out then same may be informed and after calling the objections and giving opportunity of hearing, the permission could have been refused but in this case nothing was done. It is also stated that Rule 30 of Rules, 2012 provides if any shortcoming is pointed out the aggrieved person should be given an opportunity to resubmit the plan and still if shortcoming is not removed, the plan can be rejected. But, nothing is done and as such action of the Corporation is assailed mainly on the ground that the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and thus it is in violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. But, nothing is done and as such action of the Corporation is assailed mainly on the ground that the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and thus it is in violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. A reply has also been filed behalf of the State stating therein that vide order dated 15.3.2004 they had granted consent to allot 1994 square feet of land in Shahpura Scheme of BDA. It is stated that respondent No.2 had approved the map of development of Shahpura Scheme under which area marked and covered under the green colour was reserved for the land use of ‘Lake Front Development’ and land is reserved for Lake Front Development and no construction activities over the said area which is reserved as green reserved area can be made. It is also shown that said area is a park/open area and therefore the Commissioner Municipal Corporation was informed that no construction permission can be granted in the said area. 6. Respondent No.3 has also filed reply stating therein that the State Government i.e. Department of Town & Country Planning vide communication dated 17.1.2023 opined that the area is a green area as per layout of TNCP, Bhopal. As per the Corporation, they have taken action only in pursuance to letter dated 17.1.2023 (Annexure-R/3-VIII) that no construction would be permitted over the said area which ismarked as green area in the layout plan. 7. Respondent No.5 has also filed a reply stating therein that vide letter dated 15.3.2004 the State Government permitted BDA for allotment of land i.e. the land in question area measuring 19942 square feet, therefore, they issued an advertisement for the said land and in pursuance to the advertisement the offer of the petitioner which was found appropriate, was accepted. BDA also submitted that the land was allotted as per the approval of the State Government. 8. Interveners have also filed their written objection with regard to construction which is being raised by the petitioner for the land in question and the objection was mainly on the ground that the land over which the petitioner was raising construction and making School is earmarked as green land and no construction can be raised over the said land. 8. Interveners have also filed their written objection with regard to construction which is being raised by the petitioner for the land in question and the objection was mainly on the ground that the land over which the petitioner was raising construction and making School is earmarked as green land and no construction can be raised over the said land. It was also submitted by the interveners that on their objection, the action has been taken and the land which was shown to be open land in the sale-deed executed by BDA in favour of the owners of the houses of particular colony wherein the construction of school is being raised and therefore that open area cannot be used for any other purposes. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, the Court found that the dispute as involved in the case was that the construction which is being raised by the petitioner is said to be illegal only because the land over which the petitioner is raising construction falls within the green land area and as such no construction over the said land is permissible. Although interveners have also raised objection that in the colony where the members of the Association have purchased houses and in the saledeed that area has been shown as open land and therefore no construction can be raised over there. Reply of the State Government is also there, but there is no specific submission made by the State that on the basis of which notification, said land has been notified as green belt and construction over the said area has been restricted. The order of Municipal Corporation cancelling the sanction for construction has been made only on the ground that it is the State which had pointed out that no construction was permissible over the said land. Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the State should come forward with a specific stand as to whether any order or notification was ever issued by the State Government notifying the said area as green belt or restricted zone from raising construction. Although, the State has filed additional reply and also filed an affidavit but nowhere it is shown that any notification or order had been issued by the State Government notifying that area as green belt. Although, the State has filed additional reply and also filed an affidavit but nowhere it is shown that any notification or order had been issued by the State Government notifying that area as green belt. The Court directed the State vide order dated 19.7.2023 and 7.8.2023 to file specific affidavit showing the order or notification if any issued by the State Government specifying the said area to be a green belt. But, despite specific order, the State failed to produce any such order/notification. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the said area cannot be held green belt for the reason that the land was allotted to the petitioner after getting approval from the State Government and has been surrounded by the construction made by private persons and also various departments. He also drew attention of this Court towards the fact that the land has been allotted by BDA after getting sanction from the State Government and also issued notice notifying applications for allotment and that notice was published in local newspapers but neither any department of the State nor any authority raised objection that the land cannot be allotted and no construction is permissible because that is a green belt and declared to be a construction free zone. In the advertisement dated 3.12.2002 which is available on record along with the reply of BDA, it is clear that the land was being auctioned for constructing the school. The sanction was granted by the State vide letter dated 15.3.2004 approving the rate on which land was being auctioned and BDA has also pointed out that the dispute had been raised by the petitioner-Society before the Consumer Forum against BDA for not issuing lease even after allotment and then the Consumer Forum vide order dated 17.2.2005 directed BDA to issue lease for 30 years in favour of the petitioner and said order of Consumer Forum was assailed before the State Consumer Forum by BDA, but that appeal was rejected and the order of Consumer Forum was affirmed. Even in the National Consumer Forum, the order of Consumer Forum was kept intact. Even in the National Consumer Forum, the order of Consumer Forum was kept intact. As per the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, under the existing circumstances, the Corporation acted illegally, without there being any foundation of the stand taken by the Government but on the contrary the State due to pressure created by interveners and also some other political figures issued the letter giving incorrect information to the Municipal Corporation and on the basis of said letter, the Municipal Corporation cancelled the sanction of construction granted in favour of the petitioner. 10. Although the objection raised by the petitioner about entertaining the interveners on the ground that once complaint was made by the interveners and action was initiated by the authorities, then they have no locus to oppose this petition. I find substance in the submission, but looking to the issue involved and the fact that the interveners having their houses in the said colony and as per their submission, if School is constructed their fundamental rights would be infringed and moreso, as per the Shri Gupta, the sale-deed executed by BDA in favour of some of the purchasers showing the area in question to be an open area but now construction is being raised over there and as such it is violation of the promise made by BDA. however, before this Court none of the saledeeds has been produced indicating that any such condition contained in the sale-deed. Even otherwise, in my opinion, if such a false promise was given by BDA about leaving that area as open area and even though the said land has been allotted for construction at the most interveners or persons affected therewith can claim compensation and take action against BDA. In the case at hand, the core question involved to be answered is as to whether the order passed by the Municipal Corporation for cancelling the construction plan already sanctioned that too without any opportunity of hearing and only on the basis of information given by the State Government, the order is sustainable or not. 11. In the case at hand, the core question involved to be answered is as to whether the order passed by the Municipal Corporation for cancelling the construction plan already sanctioned that too without any opportunity of hearing and only on the basis of information given by the State Government, the order is sustainable or not. 11. As per the discourse made hereinbove and perusal of record, this Court has no hesitation to say that in absence of any specific order/notification issued by the State Government declaring the said area in the layout plan as green belt or free from construction, the petitioner cannot be restricted to raise construction for which they have been granted lease after issuing public notice in which not only the petitioner but other participants also participated and without there being any objection lease was granted. The land was auctioned for specific purpose i.e. for constructing the school and accordingly after fulfilling all formalities, the petitioner sought permission from the Municipal Corporation and their plan was sanctioned, but only on the basis of information that was incorrect with regard to green belt of the said area, sanction of construction was cancelled by the Municipal Corporation. The very foundation for cancellation of sanction is itself illegal and on wrong premise and that is one of the reasons for holding the order of Municipal Corporation, which is impugned in this petition, unsustainable in the eyes of law. Secondly, the said order carries civil and adverse consequences for the petitioner and therefore prior to cancellation of such order, opportunity of hearing was required, however, said order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and therefore the impugned order is per se illegal and issued in violation of the principle of natural justice, therrefore, it is set aside. 12. Ex consequentia, the petition is allowed. 13. No order as to costs.