http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANILAL GORDHANDAS & ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/09/1996

BENCH: N.P. SINGH, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.      These  appeals   have  been  filed  on  behalf  of  the Ahmedabad Urban  Development Authority for setting aside the order passed  by the  High Court  of Gujarat  dismissing the Letters Patent  Appeals filed  on behalf  of the appellants, against the  judgment of  the Single  Judge of the said High Court in  different writ  petitions. The  writ petitions had been allowed  saying  that  the  sanction  accorded  by  the Notification dated  128.8.1983, by  the State  of Gujarat in exercise of  powers conferred  on it  by clause  (c) of sub- section (1)  of Section  17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development  Act, 1976  had lapsed after the expiry of period of  10 years  and because of service of notice by the concerned land  owners in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 20  of the  said Act,  as during this period neither the  lands  in  question  were  acquired  by  agreement  nor proceedings  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  were commenced.      The Bombay  Town Planning  Act, 1954 regulated the town planning  activity   within  the  area  falling  within  the jurisdiction of  the  local  authorities  in  the  State  of Gujarat  including   the  Ahmedabad   Municipal  Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"). On 15.1.1976 the Corporation  submitted a revised development plan to the State Government  for the  area falling within the limits of the  Corporation  for  sanction  of  the  State  Government. Section 7  of the Bombay Town Planning Act provides that the details of the proposals for designating the use of the land for the  purpose such  as (1) residential (2) industrial (3) commercial  and   (4)  agricultural  as  well  as  proposals regarding designation  of land  for public  purposes such as parks,  play-grounds,   recreation  grounds,   open  spaces, schools, markets and for institutions should be indicated in the development  plan. Section 8 prescribes, the particulars which have  to be  submitted to  the State  Government along with the  development plan.  In view  of Section  9 within 2 months  from  the  date  of  publication  of  the  aforesaid development plan  any member  of the  public has  a right to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

communicate in writing to the local authority any suggestion relating to such plan which has to be considered at any time before  submitting   the  development   plan  to  the  State Government. On receipt of the development plan under Section 8, the  State Government  under Section 10 can sanction such development plan  including with  modifications if any. Such sanction  shall   be  notified   in  official   gazette  and thereafter the  development  plan  so  sanctioned  shall  be called "the  final development  plan" which  shall come into force on  such date  as the State Government for sanction on 15.1.1976, On  19.6.1976 the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development  Act,  1976  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the Gujarat Town  Planning Act) was enacted, which came in force on 30.1.1978  and the  Bombay Town Planning Act was repealed since that  date. On  30.1.1978 itself  in exercise  of  the power under  Section 22,  the  Ahmedabad  Urban  Development Authority  (hereinafter   referred  to   as  the  AUDA)  was constituted and  the power  to prepare  development plan  in respect of  even the areas which were the part and parcel of the Corporation vested in AUDA since that date.      The preamble  of the Gujarat Town Planning Act says "an Act to  consolidate and amend the law relating to the making and execution of development plans and town planning schemes in the  State of Gujarat". Section 7 specifies the functions of the development authority which includes to undertake the preparation of development plans under the provisions of the said Act  for the  development area  and  to  undertake  the preparation of  town planning scheme under the provisions of the said Act; to control the development activities. Section 9 provides  that as soon as may be after the constitution of an area  development authority  as in the present case AUDA, for any development area such authority shall not later than three  years  after  the  declaration  of  such  area  as  a development area or within such time as the State Government may, from  time to  time extend  "prepare and  submit to the State Government  a draft  development plan for the whole or any part  of the  development area"  in accordance  with the provisions of  the said  Act. In  view of Section 10 of that Act a  copy of  the draft development plan as prepared under Section 9  in respect  of any  area has  to be kept open for inspection by  the public.  Section 12  requires such  draft development plan  to indicate the manner in which the use of the lands  in the  area covered by it shall be regulated and shall also  indicate the  manner in  which  the  development therein shall  be carried  out. The relevant portion of sub- section (2) of Section 12 is as follows:-           "12(2) In particular, it shall      provide so far as may be necessary,      for all  or any  of  the  following      matters, namely:-           (a) proposals  for designating      the   use    of   the    land   for      residential,            industrial,      commercial,    agricultural     and      recreational purposes;           (b)    proposals    for    the      reservation  of   land  for  public      purpose, such  as schools, colleges      and other educational institutions,      medical    and     public    health      institutions,    markets,    social      welfare and  cultural institutions,      theatres  and   places  for  public      entertainment,   public   assembly,      museums, art  galleries,  religious

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

    buildings,   playgrounds,   stadia,      open spaces,  dairies and  for such      other purposes as may, from time to      time, be  specified  by  the  State      Government;           (c) .........           (d)       transport        and      communications,  such   as   roads,      highways,    parkways,    railways,      waterways,  canals   and   airport,      including   their   extension   and      development;           (e) ...........           (f) ...........           (g) ...........           (h) ...........           (i) ..........           (j) ...........           (k)    proposals    for    the      reservation of land for the purpose      of   Union,    any   state,   local      authority or any other authority or      body established  by or  under  any      law for the time being in force;           (l) .........           (m) .........           (n) provision  for  preventing      or removing  pollution of  water of      air  caused  by  the  discharge  of      waste or  other means asa result of      the use of land;           (o) .........      Because of  Section 13  such authority after "the draft development plan  is prepared  and submitted  to  the  State Government  under  Section  9",  shall  publish  it  in  the official  gazette  and  in  such  other  manner  as  may  be prescribed along  with  a  notice  in  a  prescribed  manner inviting suggestions  or objections  from  any  person  with respect to  the development  plan within  a  period  of  two months from  the date of its publication. Sub-section (2) of Section 13  prescribes the  particulars  which  have  to  be published alongwith  the draft  development plan. Objections or suggestions  communicated in  writing within  the  period specified has  to be  considered and  if necessary the draft development plan  may be modified. If the modifications made by the  authority in  the  draft  development  plan  are  of extensive or  substantial nature  the said  authority has to publish the said modifications in the Official gazette along with the notice in prescribed manner inviting suggestions or objections from  any person  with respect  to  the  proposed modifications within a period of two months from the date of publication of the said notice, which is required by Section 15. Section  16 provides  that after the development plan is published as  aforesaid and  the objections  or  suggestions thereto, if  any, are received, the authority shall within a period of six months from the date of the publication of the draft development plan under Section 13 "submit to the State Government for  its sanction  the draft development plan and the regulations with the modifications, if any, made thereof under Section  14 or  15". The  particulars published  under sub-section  (2)  of  Section  13  and  the  suggestions  or objections received  under Sections 14 or 15 have also to be submitted to  the State  Government  along  with  the  draft development plan  because of  sub-section (2) of Section 16. Section 17(1)  which is  relevant for the present case is as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

follows :-           "17.(1)(a) On  receipt of  the      draft   development    plan   under      section 16,  the  State  Government      plan under  section 16,  the  State      Government may, by notification,-           (i)   sanction    the    draft      development    plan     and     the      regulations so received, within the      prescribed period, for the whole of      the area  covered by  the  plan  or      separately for  any  part  thereof,      either  without  modifications,  or      subject to  such modifications,  as      it may consider proper; or           (ii)    return     the    drat      development    plan     and     the      regulations to the area development      authority or,  as the  case may be,      to  the   authorised  officer,  for      modifying   the    plan   and   the      regulations in  such manner  as  it      may direct.           Provided that, where the State      Government  is   of  opinion   that      substantial  modifications  in  the      draft    development    plan    and      regulations  are   necessary,   the      State Government  may,  instead  of      returning   them    to   the   area      development authority  or,  as  the      case may be, the authorised officer      under this  sub-clause, publish the      modifications     so     considered      necesary in  the  Official  Gazette      alongwith   a    notice   in    the      prescribed     manner      inviting      suggestions or  objections from any      person with respect to the proposed      modifications within  a  period  of      two  months   from  the   date   of      publication of such notice; or           (iii)   refuse    to    accord      sanction to  the draft  development      plan and the regulations and direct      the area  development authority  or      the authorised officer to prepare a      fresh development  plan  under  the      provisions of this Act.           (b) Where  a development  plan      and regulations  are returned to an      area development  authority, or, as      the case  may  be,  the  authorised      officer under  sub-clause  (ii)  of      clause (a),  the  area  development      authority, or,  as the case may be,      the authorised officer, shall carry      out the  State Government  and then      submit them  as so  modified to the      State Government  for sanction; and      the    State    Government    shall      thereupon   sanction   them   after      satisfying    itself    that    the      modifications suggested  have  been      carried out therein.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

         (c) Where the State Government      has  published   the  modifications      considered  necessary  in  a  draft      development plan  as required under      the proviso  to sub-clause  (ii) of      clause (a),  the  State  Government      shall, before according sanction to      the draft  development plan and the      regulations,       take        into      consideration  the  suggestions  or      objections  that   may  have   been      recieved  thereto,  and  thereafter      accord  sanction   to   the   draft      development    plan     and     the      regulations in  such modified  form      as it may consider fit.           (d)  The   sanction   accorded      under  clause  (b)  or  clause  (c)      shall  be  notified  by  the  State      Government in  the Official Gazette      and  the   draft  development  plan      together with  the  regulations  so      sanctioned  shall   be  called  the      final development plan.           (e) The final development plan      shall come  into force on such date      as the State Government may specify      in the  notification  issued  under      clause (d):           Provided  that   the  date  so      specified shall not be earlier that      one  months   from  the   date   of      publication of such notification.      The State  Government under  the aforesaid  sub-section (1) of  Section 17,  may sanction the draft development plan forwarded   by    development   authority   either   without modifications or  subject to  such modifications. Section 20 provides:           "20.(1) The  area  development      authority or  any  other  authority      for   whose    purpose   land    is      designated in the final development      plan for  any purpose  specified in      clause (b),  clause (d), clause (k)      or clause (n) of sub-section (2) of      section 12,  may acquire  the  land      either by  agreement or  under  the      provisions of  the land Acquisition      Act, 1894.           (2) If the land referred to in      sub-section (1)  is not acquired by      agreement within  a period  of  ten      years from  the date  of the coming      into force of the final development      plan or  if proceedings  under  the      Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 are not      commenced within   such period, the      owner or  any person  interested in      the land  may serve a notice on the      authority concerned requiring it to      acquire the  land and if within six      months from  the date of service of      such  notice   the  land   is   not      acquired or  no steps are commenced      for    its     acquisition,     the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

    designation   of    the   land   as      aforesaid shall  be deemed  to have      lapsed. On a  plain reading,  sub-section (1) of Section 20 requires the area  development authority  for whose  purpose land  is designated in  the final  development plan  for any  purpose specified in  clauses (b),(d),  (k) or  clause (n)  of  sub- section (2)  of Section  12 to  acquire the  land either  by agreement of  under the  provisions of  the Land Acquisition Act. If  such land  is not  acquired by agreement within the period of  10 years  from the date of the "coming into force of the  final development  plan" or if the proceedings under the Land  Acquisition Act  are  not  commenced  within  such period, the  owner or  any person interested in the land may serve a  notice on  the authority  concerned requiring it to acquire the  land. If  within period  of six months from the date of  the service  of the notice the land is not acquired or no  steps are  taken for its acquisition, the designation of the land as aforesaid shall be deemed to have lapsed.      Sub-section (1)  of Section 124 repeals the Bombay Town Planning Act,  1954 but  because sub-section (2) of the said Section 124 notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken, including any declaration of intention to make a development  plan  or  town  planning  scheme,  any  draft development plan a draft town planning scheme published by a local  authority,   any  application   made  to   the  State Government for the sanction of any draft development plan or draft town planning scheme, any, sanction given by the State Government to  the draft  development  plan  or  draft  town planning scheme  shall in  so far  as it is not inconsistent with the  provisions of  the Gujarat Town Planning Act shall have effect in relation thereto.                     (emhpasis supplied)      As already mentioned above on 15.1.1976 the Corporation under the  provisions of  the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 had submitted  a  revised  development  plan  to  the  State Government fro  the area  falling within  the limits  of the Corporation for  sanction of  the State  Government. But  on 19.6.1976, the  Gujarat Town  Planning Act was enacted which came into  force with  effect from  30.1.1978. On that  very date AUDA  was constituted under Section 22 of the said Act. Because of sub-section (1) of Section 124 it shall be deemed that the  Bombay Town  Planning Act was repealed with effect from 30.1.1978, when the Gujarat Town Planning Act came into force. Section  9 required AUDA to prepare and submit to the State Government a draft development plan within three years from the  declaration of  the areas  as development areas. A draft development  plan was  prepared by AUDA for the entire area under  its jurisdiction which included the area covered by the Corporation and was submitted to the State Government for its sanction on 23.7.1981.      On 12.8.1983  a notifications  was issued  by the State Government saying :           "WHEREAS     the     Ahmedabad      Municipal Corporation  (hereinafter      referred to as "the  said Municipal      Corporation) has  prepared a  Draft      Revised      Development       Plan      (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the      said  Draft   Revised   Development      Plan")  in  respect  of  the  lands      within the jurisdiction of the said      Municipal  Corporation   under  the      provisions  of   the  Bombay   Town      Planning     Act,      1954     and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

    advertisement regarding publication      of   the    said   draft    revised      Development  Plan   and  calling  ;      objections and  suggestions in  the      said draft  revised and suggestions      in   the    said   draft    revised      development plan  was published  in      the  Part   Ii   of   the   Gujarat      Government   Gazette   dated   15th      January, 1976;           AND WHEREAS  the government of      Gujarat had considered it necessary      to make  modifications (hereinafter      referred   to    as    "the    said      modifications") in  the said  draft      revised Development  plan which was      submitted  by  the  said  municipal      corporation to the State Government      for sanction  under the  provisions      of the  Gujarat Town  Planning  and      Urban Development Act, 1976;           ..........................           NOW, THEREFORE,   in  exercise      of the  powers conferred  by clause      (c) of  sub-section (1)  of section      17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and      Urban Development  Act,  1976,  the      Government of Gujarat hereby;           (a) finalises    the     said      modifications;           (b) sanctions  the said  draft      revised development  plan  and  the      regulations thereto  subject to the      modifications so  finalised and  as      set out  in the  schedule  appended      hereto; and           (c)   specifies    the    16th      September,  1983  as  the  date  on      which the  final  development  plan      shall come into force." From the  aforesaid notification  itself it is apparent that the State Government purported to sanction the draft revised development plan  submitted on  15.1.1976 by the Corporation under the  provisions of  the Bombay  Town Planning  Act and State Government  specified 16.9.1993  as the  date on which the said final development plan shall come into force.      There is  no dispute  that when  AUDA prepared  a draft development plan  in accordance  with the  provisions of the Gujarat  Town  Planning  Act  and  submitted  to  the  State Government for  sanction on  23.7.1981 it  also included the area and the draft plan with modifications already submitted by the  Corporation on 15.1.1976. It is the case of the AUDA that it  was considered  necessary to include even that area in the  draft development  plant prepared  by the appellant, because by  that time  the draft  development plan which had been submitted by the Corporation had not been sanctioned by the State  Government. The  State Government  sanctioned the draft  development   plan  submitted  on  23.7.1981  by  the appellant AUDA  on 2.11.1987  including for the areas within the Corporation  in respect  of which  the draft development had been  sanctioned by  the State  Government by  aforesaid notification dated 12.8.1983.      According to  the writ  petitioners-respondents, as the draft development plan which had been submitted on 15.1.1976 and sanctioned  on 12.8.1983  by a  notification saying that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

the sanction  plan shall  come into  force with  effect from 16.9.1983. the  period of  10 years  as  specified  in  sub- section (2)  of Section  20 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act shall have  to be  counted with effect from 16.9.1983 so far the  area   covered  by   notification  dated  12.8.1983  is concerned. The  claimed that  within the aforesaid period of 10 years  from coming  into force  of the  final development plan  neither   the  lands   in  question   covered  by  the notification were  acquired by agreement nor any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were commenced. Thereafter, they  issued notices and on expiry of the period of six  months from  the date  of service of such notices it was claimed on their behalf that the designation of the land had lapsed.  This has found favour with the High Court which has been questioned before this Court.      It may  be pointed  out  that  although  the  aforesaid notification dated 12.8.1983 was issued under the provisions of Clause  (c) sub-section  (1) of Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning  Act,  admittedly  the  said  draft  plan  had neither been  prepared in  accordance with the provisions of Gujarat  Town   Planning  Act  nor  submitted  by  AUDA  the appellant.  In   the  notification   itself  it   has   been specifically mentioned that the Corporation had prepared the said draft  revised development plan under the provisions of the Bombay  Town Planning  Act and submitted the same to the State Government on 15.1.1976. It has been further said that the State  Government had  considered it  necessary to  make modifications in  the said  draft revised  development  plan which  was   submitted  by  the  Corporation  to  the  State Government and  thereafter sanction  was  being accorded. We are not  able to  appreciate as  to why  and how  the  draft revised development  plan which  had been  submitted by  the Corporation on  15.1.1976 was  sanctioned  and  notified  on 12.8.1983, when  in the  meantime the  Gujarat Town Planning Act had come into force with effect from 30.1.1978 which had jurisdiction even  over the  area in  respect of  which  the Corporation had  submitted the  draft  development  plan  on 15.1.1976. Apart from that before the aforesaid notification dated 12.8.1983  was issued, the appellant had submitted its draft development  plan  prepared  in  accordance  with  the provisions of  the Gujarat  Town Planning  Act to  the State Government for  sanction, covering  even the  area which had been included in the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation on 15.1.1976 along with the much larger area for which the  draft development  plan was  much larger area for which  the  draft  development  plan  was  prepared  by  the appellant. In normal course, the State Government should not have taken  note of  the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation  on 15.1.1976  which remained pending before the State  Government and  in the  meantime the Gujarat Town Planning Act  came into force and a more comprehensive draft development  plan   prepared  by   the  appellant  had  been submitted to the State Government covering even the area for which the  Corporation had  submitted  a  draft  development plan. On  behalf of  the respondents it was pointed out that when the  appellant had  submitted to draft development plan on  23.7.1981   including  the   are  for  which  the  draft development plan  had been  submitted by the Corporation, it was open  to the  State Government  to  sanction  the  draft development plan  only in  part, covering the area for which the draft development plan had been submitted earlier, while exercising power  under Section  17(1)(a)(i) which says that the State  Government may by notification sanction the draft development plan  for the "whole area covered by the plan or separately for  any part  thereof". This argument could have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

been accepted  if in  the notification  dated 12.8.1983  the State Government  had referred to the draft development plan submitted by the appellant on 23.7.1981 and had specifically said that  it was  sanctioning only part of the said plan by that notification.  In the  notification dated 12.8.1983, no notice  has   been  taken  of  the  draft  development  plan submitted by  the appellant  on 23.7.1981, covering even the areas in respect whereof the draft development plan had been prepared  by  the  Corporation.  As  such  it  is  a  futile contention that  by notification dated 12.8.1983 part of the draft  development   plan  submitted  by  the  appellant  on 23.7.1981 had  been sanctioned  by the  State Government  in exercise of the powers under Section 17(1)(a)(i).      It was  then submitted  that as  the draft  development plan had  been submitted  by the  Corporation to  the  State Government  before   the  Bombay  Town  Planning  Act  stood repealed on  coming into  force of the Gujarat Town Planning Act on  30.1.1978, because of sub-section (2) of Section 124 aforesaid it  was open  to the  State Government to sanction that plan.  On proper reading of sub-section (2) it appears, that it shall be deemed that the said draft development plan was pending  before the  State Government  because  of  sub- section (2)  of Section  124. There  is a deeming fiction in sub-section (2)  of Section  124 saying that any application made to  the State  Government for  sanction  of  any  draft development plan shall "be deemed to have been done or taken under the  corresponding provisions  of this  Act". It shall only keep   the  draft development  plan  submitted  by  the Corporation  pending   for  consideration   by   the   state Government because  it shall  be deemed  that  it  has  been submitted to  the State  Government under  the provisions of the Gujarat  Town Planning  Act.  But before sanctioning the said plan  the State  Government was required to examine the said  draft   development  plan   along  with     the  draft development plan  prepared and  submitted by  the  appellant AUDA in  the meantime.   It  can  be  said  that  there  was complete lack  of application  of mind on the part submitted on 15.1.1976  by the  Corporation was  sanctioned under  the provisions of  the Gujarat  Town planning  Act on 12.8.1983. Overlooking the  fact that  in the  meantime a comprehensive draft development  plan had  been prepared  by the appellant and had  been submitted   on  23.7.1981 for  sanction of the state Government.   When  Section 17(1)  vests power  in the State   Government to  sanction the  draft development plan, the said statutory power should not be exercised in a casual manner without proper application of mind.  The facts of the present case   clearly  depict how  the state Government has exercised the  power under  Section 17(1) (c) of the Gujarat Town Planning  Act without  proper application  of mind.  It appears the  notification   dated 12.8.1983  has been issued being completely oblivious and ignorant of the submission of a draft development plan by the appellant in the meantime on 23.7.1981   Covering those  areas also.  Inspite of repeated queries  from   the  counsel   who  appeared  for  the  writ petitioners-respondent, they  could not  explain as  to  how while sanctioning  the draft  development plan  submitted on 15.1.1976 by  the Corporation,  there is  no mention  in the notification in  question about  the submission   of a draft development   plan by  the appellant  covering   those  very areas.   Why the  State Government  was sanctioning the plan submitted on  15.1.1976 ignoring  the more comprehensive the detailed draft  development plan  for  a  much  larger  area including the  area   for which  the draft development  plan had been  submitted on 15.1.1976 by the Corporation?  If the State Government was conscious of the fact that later a more

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

comprehensive draft  development plan  had been submitted by the appellant,  there was  no reason  to sanction  the draft development plan submitted by the Corporation which had lost jurisdiction over  the area  for which the draft development plan had  been  prepared.    The  Draft    development  plan submitted  by   the  Corporation   had  been  sanctioned  on 12.8.1983   without proper  application of  mind is  obvious from   the fact  that admittedly  later the State Government on 2.11.1987 sanctioned by notification issued under Section 17(1)(i)(c) of  the Gujarat  Town Planning  Act,  the  draft development plan  submitted by  the appellant  on  23.7.1981 including the  area for which the draft development plan had been submitted by the Corporation on 15.1.1976.      Apart from  that from a mere comparison of the relevant Sections  under  the  Bombay  Town  Planning  Act  with  the provisions of  the Gujarat Town Planning Act it shall appear that the  relevant provisions  of the  Gujarat Town Planning Act   are inconsistent  with the  provisions of  Bombay Town Planning Act  are inconsistent with the provisions of Bombay Town Planning  Act.  Section 12 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act covers  a much wider field of the development and object for development is not as limited as Section 7 of the Bombay Town Planning Act.  Section 12 Takes note of the Factors and objects for  which provisions  have to  be made in the draft development plan.  Keeping in  view the  modern requirements for an  urban  development  provision  have  been  made  for zoological   gardens,    green   belts,   natural   reserves sanctuaries, railways,  waterways,  canals,  airport,  water supply, drainage, sewage disposal , Public utility amenities including  supply   of  electricity   and  gas.     It  also contemplates preservation,  conservation and  development  f natural  scenery   and  landscape,   places  of  historical, architectural interest.   It  provides for  controlling  and regulating the  use  and  development  of  land  within  the developed  area   including  imposition  of  conditions  and restrictions in  regard to  the open  space to be maintained for buildings,  the percentage  of building area for a plot, the location,  number, size,  height ,  number  of storeys , parking spaces  etc.  It conceives provision  for preventing or removing pollution of water or air caused by discharge of waste or  other means  as a  result of the use of land.  All this was  not in  Section 7  of the Bombay Town Planning Act prescribing  the   contents   of   the   development   plan. Similarly, the  procedure prescribed for sanction of a draft development plan under Sections 13 to 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act  are not  consistent with  Sections 8  to 10 of Bombay Town Planning act.  It has to be held that provisions of Sections  7  to  10  of  Bombay  Town  Planning  Act  are inconsistent with  Sections 9  to 17  of  the  Gujarat  Town Planning Act.   As  such after coming into force of  Gujarat Town Planning Act on 30.1.1978 State Government was required to follow provisions of Sections 9 to 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning Act.   Sub-Section  (2) of  Section 124  of Gujarat Town Planning  Act was of no help when the plan submitted by Corporation was  sanctioned on  12.8.1983.   That could have been done if the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act had been  consistent with   the  provisions of  Bombay  town Planning Act.  Sub-section (2) of Section 124 says:      "Notwithstanding    such    repeal,      anything done  or any  action taken      (including   any   declaration   of      intention  to  make  a  development      plan or  town planning  scheme, any      draft  development  plan  or  draft      town planning scheme published by a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

    local  authority,  any  application      made to  the State  Government  for      the   sanction    of   any    draft      development  plan   or  draft  town      planning  scheme,   any,   sanction      given by  the State  Government  to      the        draft        development      plan...............................      ...................................      ...................................      ...................................      ...................................      ....      shall, in  so  far  as  it  is  not      inconsistent with the provisions of      this Act,  and  the  provisions  of      this  Act   shall  have  effect  in      relation thereto". ( emphasis supplied ) Provisions and procedure under Section 7 to 10 of the Bombay Town Planning  Act are  different from  the  provisions  and procedure in  respect of  preparation of  a development plan under the  Gujarat Town Planning Act. In this background the State Government  should not  have taken  not  of  the  Plan submitted on  15.1.1976 by  the Corporation after the repeal of the  Bombay Town  Planning Act on 30.1.1978 and coming in force of  the new  Gujarat Town  Planning Act . There was no occasion to  ignore the comprehensive plan submitted by AUDA vested with the power to submit such plan and to sanction to draft plan  submitted such  plan and  to sanction  the draft plan submitted  by the  Corporation. According  to us, after coming into  force to  the  Gujarat  Town  Planning  Act  on 30.1.1978 State  Government could not have sanctioned a plan submitted by  the Corporation  when the  AUDA  had  alraeady submitted a draft development plan even covering those areas under the Gujarat Town Planning Act.      To prepare  a scheme  for the  development of  an urban agglomeration in  the present  days is  a very complex issue and  any   development  authority   as  well  as  the  State Government which  is the  sanctioning authority has to apply its mind  on the  details of  such development plans. During the last  few  decades  an  urban  development  has  assumed unprecedented importance because of the population migration from rural areas to urban areas and cry for a roof and fresh air. In  such urban  areas the  orderly growth of the cities has to  be enforced  through proper  development plans.  For every city  as was  done in  Ahmedabad in  the present case, development  authorities   have  been  constituted  who  can prepare comprehensive development plans keeping not only the present requirement  but even  the requirements for the 21st century in  view. If  the development  in such areas are not carried on the well known principle, most of the cities will be converted  into slums  sooner or  later. There was a time when a  city meant  only  residential  area  and  commercial complex including  industrial centres. But the whole concept has changed.  While planning  an urban  area  not  only  the residential,  institutional,   industrial  and   commercial, aspects have to be seen but also provisions heave to be made in respect  of  zoological  gardens,  green  belts,  natural reserves,  sanctuaries,   highways,   parkways,   waterways, airport,  drainage,   sewage   disposal.   The   development authority has  also to reserve land for community facilities and services and for prevention of pollution of water or air caused by  the discharge of waste or other means as a result of the use of land. From a bare reference of sub-section (2)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

of Section  12 it  shall appear  that framers of the Gujarat Town Planning  Act have conceived the new requirements for a proper development of an urban area.      As in the present case the only question which is to be answered is  as to  with effect  from which  date  10  years period shall  be counted,  it has  to be decided as to which date shall  be deemed to be the date of coming into force of the final  development plan,  so far  the  area  within  the Corporation is  concerned. The  notification dated 2.11.1987 had been  issued by  the State  Government covering the area notified on  12.8.1983 several  years before the issuance of notices by  the writ  petitioners.  The  notification  dated 2.11.1987 was  neither questioned  by the  writ  petitioners respondents nor could have been questioned, according to us. When power  has been  vested in  the appellant  to prepare a draft development  plan and there being no bar to include in the said  draft development  plan even  area  for  which  an earlier draft  development plan and which was sanctioned and notified on  2.11.1987 shall  be  deemed  to  be  the  final development plan  within the  meaning of  Section 20  of the Gujarat Town  Planning Act.  As such  the period of 10 years has to be calculated and counted with reference to 3.12.1987 the date  when such  final development plan was to come into force.      On behalf  of the  writ petitioners  it was pointed out that if  it is held that period of 10 years is to be counted with reference  to 3.12.1987  then the  right which has been provided to  the land  owners or  the persons  interested by sub-section (2)  of Section  20 to  give  notice  after  the expiry of  the period  of 10 years from coming into force of the final  development plan,  can be  defeated by  any  area development authority by notifying a fresh draft development plan just on expiry of the final plan including fresh areas. In other words any are development authority of verge of the expiry of  the period  of 10  years of  a final  development plan, may  include that  area into another draft development plan along  with other  areas to  defeat the right which had accrued or  was likely  to accrue  to the land owners or the persons interested  under sub-section  (2) of Section 20. If such power  is exercised  with ulterior  motive and  with an object to  defeat the statutory right of persons interested, courts  will  be  perfectly  justified  in  nullifying  such actions of  area development authorities. But in the present case as  has been  pointed out  above the  draft development plan had  been submitted  by the  appellant as  early as  on 23.7.1981 much  before the  draft development plan submitted by the  Corporation was sanctioned on 12.8.1983. There is no scope for attributing any bad faith or malice on the part of the appellant  or the  State Government  in  the  facts  and circumstances of  the present  case. In all fairness none of the counsel  appearing for  the writ petitioners respondents took such  a stand  that the  State Government  approved the draft  development   plan  submitted  by  the  appellant  on 2.11.1987 only  to defeat  the right  which was to accrue to the land owners to persons interested in the next few years.      We are  not inclined  to accept  the submission made on behalf of  the respondents  that the effect of the sanctions given on  12.8.1983 and  2.11.1987 shall  be that  two final development  plans  had  come  into  force.  The  effect  of sanction  given   on  2.11.1987  shall  be  that  the  State Government  had  sanctioned  the  comprehensive  draft  plan prepared by  the appellant with the area in respect of which State  Government   had  purported  to  accord  sanction  on 12.8.1983. The  respondents could  not point  out as  to how this sanction  of the State Government given by notification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

dated 2.11.1987 shall be illegal, invalid and not sanctioned by law.  In the  present case the draft development plan was submitted on 23.7.1981 by the appellant which was sanctioned on 2.11.1987.  Then it  shall be  deemed that  the  area  in respect of  which separate  draft development  plan had been sanctioned on 12.8.1983 merged and became part and parcel of the  scheme  and  plan  which  had  been  submitted  by  the appellant AUDA  on 23.7.1981  and which  was  sanctioned  on 2.11.1987. It  will be  deemed that  the final  plan came in force with  effect from  3.12.1987, even  in respect of area which was covered by the notification dated 12.8.1983.      We have  already held  that the  State Government could not have  sanctioned the draft development plan submitted by Corporation on  12.8.1983 because  the Gujarat Town Planning Act had  come in  force on 30.1.1978. and sub-section (2) of Section 124  of the Gujarat Town Planning Act shall not save the  plan   submitted  by  the  Corporation,  provisions  of Sections  9  to  17  of  Gujarat  Town  Planning  Act  being inconsistent with  Section  7  to  10  of  the  Bombay  Town Planning Act.  The State  Government after coming into force of the  Gujarat Town  Planning Act  should have  ignored the draft development  plan  submitted  by  the  Corporation  on 15.1.1976. This  was also  necessary because  a special Act, Gujarat Town Planning Act had been enacted on 19.6.1976 with the sole  object to  develop the urban areas of the State in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.      Accordingly, the  appeals are allowed. The judgments of the High  Court are  set aside  and the  writ petitions  are dismissed. There shall be no orders for costs.