Deemed permission and draft scheme publication under town planning law require compliance with requisitions and valid gazette notice.

A planning statute will not give rise to deemed permission where the authority requisitions further information and the applicant does not comply; in that situation, closure of the application is treated as rejection, not automatic approval. The draft town development scheme was also held not to be invalid: the two-year period under the Act could run from the later of two gazette declarations, and publication in the official gazette completed the statutory publication requirement while newspaper publication served additional publicity and objection-notice purposes only. Once a draft development scheme was published, permission or a no objection certificate for inconsistent development could properly be refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had acquired deemed permission to develop the land under section 30(5) of the M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the draft town development scheme was invalid because it was published beyond two years from the declaration under section 50(2) of the Act or because publication in the official gazette and local newspaper was not simultaneous under Rule 18 of the M.P. Town and Country Development Rules, 1975. (iii) Whether the refusal of permission and no objection certificate was illegal once a draft development scheme covering the land had already been published.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had acquired deemed permission to develop the land under section 30(5) of the M.P. Town and Country Development Act, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the Director to decide an application under section 29, but the period of sixty days stood excluded where further information or documents were requisitioned from the applicant. The communications seeking information showed that the applicant had not supplied the required material and that the case was closed for want of response. In such a situation, the period for deemed grant did not run in the manner contended for, and the closure of the case amounted to rejection rather than deemed permission. The absence of appeal or revision against that communication also supported the conclusion that no deemed permission arose.

Conclusion: The claim of deemed permission was not established and the finding of the High Court on this issue was erroneous.

Issue (ii): Whether the draft town development scheme was invalid because it was published beyond two years from the declaration under section 50(2) of the Act or because publication in the official gazette and local newspaper was not simultaneous under Rule 18 of the M.P. Town and Country Development Rules, 1975.

Analysis: The existence of two gazette publications under section 50(2) meant that the later declaration could validly furnish the starting point for computing the two-year period. On that basis, the draft scheme published in the gazette fell within time. As to Rule 18, publication in the official gazette completed the statutory publication for purposes of section 50(3), while publication in a local Hindi newspaper served the additional purpose of wide publicity and inviting objections. The rule did not require simultaneous publication in both media as a condition of validity. A purposive construction was adopted to advance planned development and avoid defeating the legislative object by a rigid reading.

Conclusion: The draft scheme was not invalid on either ground and the contrary view of the High Court was .

Issue (iii): Whether the refusal of permission and no objection certificate was illegal once a draft development scheme covering the land had already been published.

Analysis: Once a draft development scheme had been published, no independent development inconsistent with that scheme could be sanctioned. The applicant's requests for permission and for a no objection certificate were therefore contrary to the statutory planning framework. The statutory appeal or revision remedies were available, and there was no illegality in the orders refusing relief.

Conclusion: The refusals of permission and no objection certificate were valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the High Court's quashing of the draft scheme and grant of relief to the respondent could not be sustained under the statutory planning regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a planning statute excludes the period consumed by requisitions for information, deemed permission does not arise until the applicant complies; and publication of a draft development scheme is complete for limitation purposes on gazette publication, while newspaper publication is only for additional publicity unless the statute expressly makes simultaneous publication mandatory.

---