Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.P.Dubey vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 29 January, 2010

                          R.P No.500/2009

       Shri P. R. Bhave, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Bhanu
Pratap Yadav for the petitioner.
       Shri Prashant Singh learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent no.17.
The petitioner has filed this review petition stating that the
respondent authorities are interpreting the order passed by this
Court as an order permitting them to directly allot plots in ignorance
of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P
No.868/1994 in para-15.

The respondents have entered appearance and submitted
that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is misplaced and
misconceived as the notices have been issued in accordance with
the directions issued by the Division Bench in para-15 and the
respondent authorities would strictly comply with the directions
issued by the Division Bench, enter into negotiation and only
thereafter finalize the list of allottees as directed by the Division

In the circumstances, while no modification or review of the
order passed by this Court in W.P No.2731/2007 is called for, the
petition is disposed of with a further direction that the J.D.A shall
treat the notices challenged in the original petition as notices for
negotiation as directed by the Division Bench in para-15 and the
notices shall be dealt with and processed by the authority keeping
the directions and guidelines issued by the Division Bench in mind
specifically the undermentioned part of para-15 which reads as

“Purchasers from society, have a right to
claim damages from the housing society and the
office bearers of the housing society are also
liable for prosecution as they have cheated the
public at large. Jabalpur Development Authority is

directed to take steps to redeem its property. It
may hold negotiations for transfer of lands with
the persons in possession of the property who
have purchased the property from said housing
society on the terms and conditions as per rule 5
and section 58 of the Adhiniyam and settle the
rights with the residents. However, no right will
be conferred upon the purchaser who has
purchased the property after the stay of sale by
this Court on 28.2.05.”

It is further made clear that the J.D.A shall, in accordance
with para-15 of the Division Bench directions, enter into negotiation
with any person who comes within the sweep of the directions
issued by the Division Bench in W.P No.868/1994 but has been left

It is further directed that the period of four months, granted
by this Court for compliance of the direction issued in the original
writ petition i.e. W.P No.2731/2007, shall stand extended by a
further period of four months from the date of furnishing a copy of
the order passed today.

With the aforesaid observation the review petition stands
disposed of.

C.C as per rules.

( R. S. JHA )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.167 seconds.