RAIUPR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI AND ORS.

RAIUPR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ANUPAM SAHKARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAMITI AND ORS.

No deemed permission arises under Section 30(5) where applicant fails to supply requisite information; the period is extended under proviso. Validity of scheme publication is determined by compliance with statutory form and manner, not simultaneous publication. Second publication starts limitation period if first lapses. High Court erred in quashing scheme and granting deemed permission.

Parties
Appellant: Raipur Development Authority; Respondent: Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 25.8.1988 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside.
Legal Topics
Development Schemes, Deemed Permission, Public Notice Requirements
Town and Country Planning Administrative Law Development Schemes Deemed Permission Public Notice Requirements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raipur Development Authority

Appellant

Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 25.8.1988 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deemed permission arises under Section 30(5) when information is not furnished by applicant
  2. 2 Validity of two publications of intention under Section 50(2) of the Act
  3. 3 Computation and manner of publication under Rule 18(2) in relation to Section 50(3)

Ratio Decidendi

No deemed permission arises under Section 30(5) where applicant fails to supply requisite information; the period is extended under proviso. Validity of scheme publication is determined by compliance with statutory form and manner, not simultaneous publication. Second publication starts limitation period if first lapses. High Court erred in quashing scheme and granting deemed permission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside.

Orders

  • Draft scheme quashing by High Court reversed.
  • Respondent's application for deemed permission denied.