ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs :-- “(a) The respondent may be directed to grant building permission to the petitioner society and to quash the communication dated 27.9.2023 (Annexure P/22) and 1.11.2023 (Annexure P/23) after accepting contention of the petitioner society as contained in their communications dated 19.9.2022 (Annexure P/15), 3.1.2023 (Annexure P/16), dated 07.2.2023 (Annexure P/17), 3.3.2023 (Annexure P/18) and 10.4.2023 (Annexure P/19), 13.7.2023 (Annexure P/21) and 1.11.2023 (Annexure P/23) within a specified time. (b) The petitioner be awarded cost of the petition. (c) Any other and further relief, as may be deemed fit may be granted to the petitioner.” 2. As per the petitioner it is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is the Bhumiswami of land bearing servey No.5/1/1, 7/1, 9/1, 7/4/1, 8/1 total area 2.902 hectare, Village Goyalakhurd in Tulsi Nagar, Sanver Indore road in District Ujjain. The land had been purchased by it for allotment of plots to its members for which purpose it had obtained a colonizer license from the Collector, District Ujjain on 5.4.1983. The land had been got diverted by the petitioner on 2.4.1985 from the Sub Divisional Officer. In the year 1985 itself development of the land has been done by the petitioner. It had deposited an amount of Rs.15,500/- for sanction of plan and supervision charges to the tune of Rs.15,500/- on 3.3.1989. Thereafter Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizers) Terms and Conditions Rules, 1998 were framed, hence Colonizer Registration Certificate was also obtained by the petitioner on 6.3.2003. 3. Thereafter the petitioner wanted to develop the entire colony hence submitted application in that regard before the respondents on 12.3.2003. Lay out plan was got sanctioned from the office of Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Ujjain on 23.3.2005. Petitioner also deposited supervision fees of Rs.44,000/- on 21.4.2005. Mortgage deed of some plots was also executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents. The land in question was subject matter of civil dispute which was decided on 20.10.2010 by the Trial Court and was thereafter subject matter of First Appeal No.965/2010 before this Court andthereafter before the spex Court which was finally decided on 4.9.2017 and 19.3.2018 respectively hence further process could not be taken by the respondents. 4. The land in question was subject matter of civil dispute which was decided on 20.10.2010 by the Trial Court and was thereafter subject matter of First Appeal No.965/2010 before this Court andthereafter before the spex Court which was finally decided on 4.9.2017 and 19.3.2018 respectively hence further process could not be taken by the respondents. 4. The elected body of the petitioner had been superseded and was under administrative control of the administrator appointed by Co-operative Department. Subsequently elections of the Board of Directors was done by M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal and the elected body was declared on 11.6.2022 and Smt. Kavita Jadhav was elected as the President of the society. On 7.4.2022 administrator of the petitioner society had written a letter to Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Department for renewal of the site plan which was sanctioned earlier on 23.3.2005 but the office of Joint Director informed the petitioner on 29.4.2022 that since development work has already been started upon the land in question, therefore under rule 23 (3) of M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012 renewal of the site plan is not necessary. 5. The petitioner submitted a letter on 3.1.2023 to the respondents stating that since application for development has already been submitted on 19.9.2022 in furtherance of application dated 7.2.2023, therefore development permission be issued so that the colony may be fully developed. The same was followed by various reminder letters. Respondent No.2 sent reply to petitioner on 19.4.2023 stating that since petitioners' application was earlier and old it should submit a fresh application. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid letter on 13.7.2023 clarifying that each and every document has already been submitted and application has already been filed and even the amount has also been deposited. It was stated that the petitioner is ready to deposit development charges and consequential building permission may be given to it. The respondents however were not issuing the necessary building permission to the petitioner, therefore it submitted an application in Jansunwai before the Collector on 8.8.2023 to which respondent No.2 replied on 27.9.2023 stating that since new Rules have come into force in the year 2021 petitioner should file fresh application in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2021 and earlier application filed by the petitioner has been filed without any further process in the matter. Another letter on the same line was issued by respondent No.2 on 1.11.2023. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had already applied on 11.3.2003 for development permission upon payment of necessary charges. It had also obtained lay out sanction from the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, District Ujjain hence the respondents ought to grant building permission to the petitioner. Plots have been got mortgaged by respondents from the petitioner by execution of registered mortgage deed. Everything has already been done by the petitioner and only because of the fact that the elected body was not in existence and the administrator who was appointed did nothing in the matter no further action could be taken. After the election the elected body wishes to proceed further hence the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioner to carry out the entire formalities once again. Earlier there was litigation with respect to the land therefore further proceedings could not be under taken. The respondents cannot keep the matter pending for development permission as well as sanction of map only on the ground that there was some delay in the matter. In fact there has not been any delay on part of the petitioner at any point of time. Everything has already been done which was legally required to be done by the petitioner. The society was very much in existence and permission could have been granted to the administrator himself. There is no justification for the respondents to direct the petitioner to submit a fresh application under the new Rules, 2021 when earlier application in accordance with the Rules, 1998 has already been submitted and all the legal formalities have already been completed. The development work has already been completed prior to commencement of the Rules, 2021, hence petitioner's development permission has wrongly been rejected by the respondents. 7. Reply has been filed by the respondents and the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the essential requirements of law requiring building construction permission which could not be granted. It can be granted when all the requirements are fulfilled as laid down in the Rules, 2021 and other enactments which are in force. If the petitioner approaches the respondents after fulfiling the required criteria permission sought for can be considered in accordance with law. It can be granted when all the requirements are fulfilled as laid down in the Rules, 2021 and other enactments which are in force. If the petitioner approaches the respondents after fulfiling the required criteria permission sought for can be considered in accordance with law. The colonizer license of the petitioner is no longer valid in view of the new Rules. The petitioner had applied for permission from Municipal Corporation but has not submitted any permission of the lands in question hence was advised to submit documents relating to the survey members but no such document was submitted by it. The order dated 2.4.1985 had a specific condition that in case development work was not completed within one year then the order would become ineffective hence in view of no development activity having been done by the petitioner the order has lost its effect. Recently the Corporation has carried out spot inspection and has found that no development work was carried out by the petitioner. The Rules, 2021 lay down an exhaustive procedure for colony developmemnt and petitioner has been asked to comply with the Rules which are in vogue but he has not done so. The petition hence deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. The petitioner had initially obtained colonizer license in 1983. The land in question was diverted in 1985. An application for grant of building permission was made before the respondents in the year 1989. Colonizer's Registration Certificate was obtained by the petitioner in the year 2023 under the Rules, 1998. Application for development of colony was submitted before respondent No.1 by the petitioner in 2003 by depositing the requisite amount. The sanctioned lay out plan was forwarded by the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning to respondent No.1 in 2005 and supervision fees was deposited. An agreement as regards the mortgaged plots was also executed in 2005 followed by registration of mortgage deeds. Thereafter it appears that no further proceedings were taken in the matter by either of the parties. 10. An agreement as regards the mortgaged plots was also executed in 2005 followed by registration of mortgage deeds. Thereafter it appears that no further proceedings were taken in the matter by either of the parties. 10. It is in dispute between the parties as to whether the development work was carried out by the petitioner or not with the petitioner contending that it had carried out such work but the respondents stating that in a recent panchnama prepared in the year 2025 upon spot inspection it has been found that no development work has been carried out by the petitioner over the land. It may be noted that no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the averments made by the respondents as regards the development work not having been carried out by it hence due to non-travers the contention of the respondents that no development work has been carried out by the petitioner is required to be accepted. Thus even after completion of all the formalities in the year 2005 no development work was done by the petitioner which was mandatory for the purpose of grant of building permission. 11. On and from the year 2010 a civil suit with respect to the land in question was filed by a third party which eventually came to be decided by the apex Court in the year 2018. In the meanwhile the elected body of the petitioner society had been superseded and an administrator had been appointed. The elected body of the petitioner was eventually declared on 11.6.2022 after which the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning stated that the sanctioned lay out plan dated 23.3.2005 is not required to be renewed and then an application was preferred by the petitioner on 19.9.2022 to the respondents for grant of development permission to which the respondents have stated that the petitioner should file a fresh application under the Rules, 2021. 12. From the narration of facts as aforesaid it is evident that no steps were taken by the petitioner subsequent to 2005 after the lay out plan was sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department and application was submitted by it before the respondents for grant of permission and mortgage of part of the plots. A civil litigation was also pending in respect of the land and the elected body of the petitioner was also superseded. A civil litigation was also pending in respect of the land and the elected body of the petitioner was also superseded. In absence of any development work having been done by the petitioner on and from 2005 upto making of application by it on 19.9.2022 for grant of development permission the respondents cannot be blamed for the delay. The petitioner itself not having carried out the development work cannot insist upon the respondents for grant of building permission on the basis of the application preferred by it in the year 2003. 13. In any case during the pendency of the proceedings the M.P. Nagar Palika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021 have come into force and rule 28 thereof provides that as from the date of commencement of the Rules, all rules and bylaws corresponding to these rules, if in force shall stand repealed. Thus the Rules, 1998 stood repealed by virtue of the repeal clause. Though proviso to Rule 28 states that anything done or any action taken under the Rules and bylaws so repealed, shall, unless such thing or action is inconsistent with provisions of the Rules, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of these Rules but there is no provision to the effect that if any proceeding had been initiated under the old Rules then it shall be continued with and concluded as per those Rules itself. 14. The application of the petitioner remained undecided under the provisions of the Rules, 1998 for no fault on part of the respondents. In the meanwhile new Rules, 2021 have come into force after which application has been preferred by the petitioner on 19.9.2022 for grant of development permission to it based on application already made under previous Rules. The same can now be made only under the new Rules and the application already submitted earlier cannot be processed under the old Rules since they stand repealed. As stated the non- determination of the application of the petitioner is not due to any fault on part of the respondents but was for the reasons beyond their control and also attributable to the petitioner itself. As stated the non- determination of the application of the petitioner is not due to any fault on part of the respondents but was for the reasons beyond their control and also attributable to the petitioner itself. Since the new Rules have come into force the petitioner is required to make an application before the respondents thereunder itself and cannot insist for its earlier application to be adjudicated upon under the old Rules itself hence the respondents have not committed any error in directing the petitioner to file fresh application in accordance with the provisions of the new Rules, 2021. 15. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the respondents under the provisions of the Rules, 2021. In case such an application is preferred by the petitioner then any amount, charges or fees which it may have deposited earlier shall be adjusted towards the fees or charges for processing such a fresh application.