Balaji Real Estate and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—In this batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for quashment of the Kamal Vihar Town Development Scheme No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "Scheme/TDS") planned, developed and in the process of execution by the Raipur Development Authority (in short "RDA"). In some petitions, the petitioners have made alternative prayer seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to exclude the lands belonging to the petitioners from the said "Scheme". ABOUT THE SCHEME: The respondent RDA has planned the Scheme comprising of 647.84 hectares of land situated at villages Dunda, Boriya Khurd, Tikrapara, Deopuri and Dumartarai (hereinafter referred to as the "subject villages") within the Raipur Planning Area to construct a modern township for the purpose of planned development of the growing city of Raipur, the capital of State of Chhattisgarh. The Scheme has been formulated under sections 49 & 50 of the C.G. Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (henceforth "the Adhiniyam/Act, 1973") and the RDA being an authority constituted under the said Act is implementing the said Scheme.

As per the brochure published by RDA (Annexure R/3-A) the Scheme will be spread over an area admeasuring 647.84 hectares=1600 acres consisting of 15 sectors with estimated cost of development of infrastructure assessed at Rs. 815.38 crores. Under the Scheme, the State Government would hand-over Government land falling within the Scheme area to the RDA and private lands falling within the Scheme area shall be taken-over by obtaining consent of the land owners or by acquisition u/s. 56 of the Act. Such land owners shall be returned the developed reconstituted plots depending upon size of their original plot. However, RDA shall not charge any contribution cost/incremental cost from the land holders so that financial burden is not shifted on the land-holders. The township would have 4 lane main road of 75 meters/45 mts/30 mts width and two lane roads of 24 mts/18 mts, width along-with other infrastructure like street lighting, service duct, underground drainage, green area, foot-path, cycle track, water supply, sewerage treatment plant, central business district and 30 meters wide commercial tract abutting ring road with further facility of small commercial area in every sector. It will also have recreational facility over 256 Acres; picnic spots and water sports on 229 acres pond at Boriyakhurd; play ground, city park over 95 acres and other parks over 62 acres. Separate areas have been reserved for educational institutions, health services, office buildings, cultural center, banks, post office etc., Initially RDA shall obtain loan for meeting the expenditure on infrastructure development which shall be later on recovered by selling 10% plots to public at large. As per the status report of the project, submitted along-with written synopsis of RDA, until 31st January 2013, a sum of Rs. 182 crores approx. has already been spent on infrastructure development.

Out of total number of 5095 land owners who are covered within the Scheme, initially only 685 have not consented for participation, therefore, the land belonging to these persons have been subjected to acquisition u/s. 56 of the Act. However, out of these 685 land-owners, 150 more land owners have accorded consent to the Scheme at subsequent stages and 11 of them have already received compensation. As against 5095 land owners, only 39 land owners have preferred writ petitions which are disposed of by this common order. According to the learned counsel for the RDA, as against the Scheme area of 647.84 hectares, the area belonging to 39 petitioners covers an area of about 20 hectares only.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

The petitioners have assailed the validity of the scheme on the grounds that the provisions contained in Section 23-A of the Act has been violated inasmuch as a Town Development Scheme is formulated to implement the master plan whereas in the present case the master plan has been modified after preparation of the Scheme. Another facet of this argument has been raised on submission that modification of lay out plan/development plan after finalization of the Scheme has vitiated the entire proceedings and that after modification of the development plan, the earlier scheme stood amended necessitating de novo steps commencing from Section 50 (1) to Section 50 (7) and in absence of such proceedings having been drawn and completed, the entire Scheme deserves to be quashed. It has also been argued that the Scheme itself is in contravention of master plan (revised/Punarvilokit) 2021 and further that in absence of zonal plan, a Town Development Scheme cannot be formulated.

It appears, the RDA resolved to formulate the Scheme on 21.03.2006 and requested the State Government for change in land use of such lands which are presently shown to be falling under ''agricultural use''. The RDA thereafter wrote a letter to the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning (T&CP) for providing the land use of certain Khasra Numbers. A meeting of the Sarpanches of the affected villages was convened on 01.06.2006 wherein all the Sarpanches consented to the Scheme. The RDA thereafter requested the State Government for communicating the land use so that steps u/s. 50 can be taken. In this communication as well as in the subsequent communication dated 20th September 2006 the words ''integrated township'' is mentioned. The State Government by its letter dated 20.09.2006 sought information from RDA on several aspects of the Scheme like the area, population and the affected agricultural lands under the Scheme. This was answered by RDA on 14.11.2006. The RDA again requested the State Government for change in land use by its letter dated 03.05.2007 and thereafter on 04.05.2007, a request was made to Hon''ble Minister seeking permission for publication of notices u/s. 50 and change of land use u/s. 23-A of the Adhiniyam. RDA by its letter dated 15.06.2007 again requested for permission with an alternative proposal of 4 different schemes of about 100 acres each. On 25.01.2008, State Government granted permission for publication of the Scheme u/s. 50 and to complete the Scheme within 5 years. The RDA in turn informed the State Government that the Scheme has been prepared in accordance with the land use notified under Raipur Development Plan 2021 (in short "RDP 2021"). The Board of Directors of RDA passed a resolution; made a declaration u/s. 50(1) and the notification dated 26.05.2009 u/s. 50(2) was published in official gazette on 05.06.2009.

When the notification u/s. 50(2) was thus published, RDA convened a meeting of its Board of Directors on 14.07.2009 for increasing the area under the Scheme upto additional extended area of 1900 acres and to seek permission from the State Government u/s. 50(1) followed by letter addressed to the State Government on 20.07.2009 interalia mentioning that after spot inspection, it was felt that the Scheme deserves to be extended for a larger area so as to give full effect to the RDP 2021 for curtailing scattered and haphazard development of the area. The RDA''s intention to implement the Scheme by reconstruction of plots and handing-over proportionate developed plots to the land holders was also mentioned in the letter. The state Government granted permission u/s. 50(1) to the extended Scheme with certain conditions by its letter dated 10.08.2009 and accordingly a declaration u/s. 50(1) was made by RDA by circulation amongst members and the amended notification dated 25th August, 2009 was published in the official gazette dated 04.09.2009.

The RDA thereafter decided to publish the draft scheme in its meeting dated 05.11.2009 and thereafter notification dated 09.11.2009 was published in the official gazette dated 20.11.2009 u/s 50(3) inviting objections/suggestions from the affected persons to be submitted within 30 days. In accordance with Section 50(5) of the Act, RDA constituted a 3 member Committee for considering the objections/suggestions on 30.11.2009 and the Committee decided to afford personal hearing to the objectors for which notices were issued by Certificate of Posting, Courier Service, Mobile SMS etc. Hundreds of objections were received and the documents filed by the RDA demonstrate that notices were issued to different set of objectors for appearance on different dates and thereafter they have been dealt-with and disposed of. The Committee in its meeting dated 09.04.2010 decided to consider even those objections which were received after the stipulated time of 30 days.

The RDA, thereafter, requested the State Government by its letter dated 15.04.2010 for change of land use in the RDP 2021. The State Government by its letter dated 20.05.2010 in turn directed the RDA, to submit proposal for modification of RDP 2021 as required u/s. 23-A of the Act. By yet another letter dated 28.05.2010 the State Government informed the RDA that its proposal for modification of RDP 2021 shall be considered after the Committee constituted u/s. 50 of the Act approves the Scheme. In its meeting dated 08.06.2010, the Committee submitted its proposal u/s. 50(6) for consideration by the Board of Directors of RDA, which was later on approved.

In its meeting dated 21.06.2010 and 22.06.2010, the Board of Directors of RDA approved the proposal recommended by the Committee and decided to publish the final draft of the Scheme as required u/s. 50(7) of the Adhiniyam. In this meeting the RDA inter-alia approved the change of the name of the Scheme from "Kamal Vihar Integrated Township Scheme, Dunda" to "Town Development Scheme No. 4 Kamal Vihar"; reconstitution of plots reserving 15% reconstituted plots for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS); to make proposal for modifying the land use of such Khasra numbers of which major part of area falls under residential use and the remaining for the agriculture use so that the entire Khasra will have residential land use.

It was also decided by the Committee that such land holders whose lands are situated on new Dhamtari Road or old Dhamtari Road will be allotted reconstituted plots on the main road and similarly other land holders will be allotted reconstituted plots at or near the same place or near to the place where their original lands were located and if this is not possible then reconstituted plots will be allotted in the same village. The final draft of the Scheme was thereafter sent to the State Government for approval.

The RDA by its letter dated 14.07.2010 suggested some minor modifications in the land use and submitted a proposal for modification in RDP 2021 u/s 23-A of the Act. The changes in the land use were with respect to (i) Change of place of regional park without changing total area under the said land use; (ii) some land of few Khasra numbers of villages Deopuri, Dumartarai and Dunda have been shown to be under residential use in RDP 2021, however, the remaining part of the same Khasra number have been marked for agricultural use, therefore, to make it workable the entire area of few such Khasra numbers be made for residential use; (iii) some area marked for educational use in RDP 2021 has been reserved for residential purpose, therefore, to make it workable same extent of area reserved for educational purpose under the scheme be modified which does not affect the total area under the educational land use in RDP 2021 as only the location is changed.

By notification dated 05th July 2010 published in Chhattisgarh gazette dated 16th July, 2010, the final Scheme was published as required u/s. 50(7) of the Act.

The Joint Director, Town and Country Planning (T&CP), Raipur, submitted its report with respect to the proposal for modification submitted by RDA to opine that one particular Khasra Number is already entered in the revenue records as Boriyakhurd Tank, therefore, the said area can be treated as land for recreation and as such, there would be no requirement of changing the land use of some residential land to recreation land. The other proposal for changes submitted by RDA was approved in terms of the Schedule. The said area for which changes were required was for approximately 10 hectares of land which is less than 2% of the total Scheme area of 647.84 hectares. In fact, as against the proposal for modification covering 33.38 hectares of land, the modification was approved only for about 10 hectares of land.

The State Government published notice for modification u/s. 23-A (i) inviting objections. The notices were published in two newspapers on consecutive days of its publication and when no objections were received, the modifications were approved u/s. 23-A (2) of the Adhiniyam, accordingly modifying the RDP (Revised) 2021 making the modified plan as part of the RDP 2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Pure Industrial Cock and Chem. Ltd. and Others, the modification in the master plan i.e., RDP 2021 after finalization of the Scheme is wholly illegal inasmuch as the Scheme is prepared in terms of the master plan and not vice versa.

In the matter of Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra), the State Government issued a notification under sub-section (i) of Section 13 of the Adhiniyam constituting Indore Planning Area including 37 villages therein, however, two villages namely Bicholi and Karadiya were not included in the planning area itself. Despite the said fact that the said villages are not included in the planning area, the Development Authority declared its intention to frame Town Development Scheme for those two villages along-with other areas and the building plan submitted for sanction by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that a Town Development Scheme is to be prepared for the area. The High Court struck down the declaration under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act with respect to the said two villages on the ground that unless the development plan for the area is published, the draft development scheme cannot be finalized by the Town and Country Development Authority u/s. 50(2) of the Act. This judgment of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus in the said case, firstly, the entire Scheme was not quashed but it was quashed for only those two villages which were not included in the planning area itself and secondly that before initiation of preparation of a Scheme for any area, there has to be a development plan for the area.

In the present case, the subject villages were already included in the RDP 2021 and it is not a case where the areas were not at all included in the planning area of RDP 2021. The modification made u/s. 23-A became part of the originally formulated RDP 2021 so that the land included in few Khasras covering about 10 hectares of land, of which, major part is residential in the RDP 2021 be modified and the land covered in the entire Khasra Number be covered under residential land use. The said area of 10 hectares is less than 2% of the Scheme area. It will not be out of place to mention that none of the petitioners own any land of which the land use has been modified from agriculture to residential. It is possible that the land owners have not approached this Court because the change in land use for remaining part of their Khasra number from agriculture to residential benefits them and in the event the said modification u/s. 23-A (2) of the Act is nullified, the sufferer would be the land owner and not the petitioners.

Be that as it may, it is not a case where there was no development plan at all for the subject khasra numbers as in the case of Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra), therefore, the case is clearly distinguishable on facts.

The petitioners have further argued that once the master plan is modified, the entire steps u/s 50(1)(2) and section 50(7) have to be taken de novo as all the previous actions became nullified when the RDP itself has suffered modification.

The details of the procedure discussed above have made it clear that the modification of the master plan is with respect to few Khasra numbers only. It is not a case of a new master plan altogether. The modification in the master plan affects less than 2% of the area. None of the land-holders whose lands have suffered change in ''land use'', after modification of the master plan, has approached this Court. With these facts in mind, it is to be seen that u/s. 23-A, the modification made in the development plan shall be an integrated part of the revised development plan meaning thereby that the modification would relate back to the date of first publication of RDP (Revised) 2021 when it was first notified on 07.04.2008. Section 23-A (1) makes the modification an integral part of the revised development plan so as to avoid taking steps de novo and it is precisely for this reason sub-section (3) of Section 23-A provides that Section 18 regarding publication of approved development plan and Section 19 regarding sanction of development plan will not be applicable for modification made by the State Government. More importantly, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the modification in the master plan has not been challenged in the writ petition nor any of the petitioners have preferred any revision before the revisional authority u/s. 51 of the Act to challenge the modification of the development plan.

The petitioners have further assailed the Scheme on the ground that modification of master plan is not in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 23-A (1) as no ''urgent public purpose'' is involved and the procedure prescribed u/s. 23-A (2) has not been followed. To buttress their submission, it has been urged that housing and planned development of a city is not an ''urgent public purpose'' and in any case the preparation of the scheme having commenced in 2006, there was no ''urgent public purpose''. Learned counsel for the petitioners have compared provisions contained in Section 17 of the land Acquisition Act and Section 23-A of the Adhiniyam and have thereafter referred to Supreme Court decisions in the matters of Devender Kumar Tyagi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Devender Kumar Tyagi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) through L.Rs. and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

Responding to the argument Shri Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State and Ms. Pinki Anand, Sr. Advocate for the RDA would refer to a Division Bench Judgment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Jaganath Dhaniram Jindal and another Vs. State of M.P. and others, to put forth their case that there can be no comparison between Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act with Section 23-A of the Adhiniyam as they operate in two different spheres and it does not warrant any kind of fusion.

The phraseology ''urgent public purpose'' has not been defined in the Act and although the words ''public purpose'' has been defined under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short Act, 1894) and urgency clause is invoked u/s. 17 of the Act, 1894, the two enactments operate in different fields. Section 23-A is about modification of development plan and not per-se for acquisition of the land. U/s. 54 of the Adhiniyam, the Scheme should commence implementation within two years or should complete its implementation within 5 years from the date of notification, failing which, the scheme would lapse. Making a provision for time bound implementation and completion of Scheme makes it imperative that when development plan is modified on the request of development authority, it is for the urgent public purpose. Under the explanation to Section 23-A, creation, development and maintenance of human settlement or any part thereof has been included within the meaning of ''public purpose'' meaning thereby that anything concerning human settlement is a ''public purpose''.

In course of argument, learned State Counsel has referred to the Hindi text of the Adhiniyam wherein the word "Atyavashyak" has been used in place of ''urgent''. According to them, the word ''Atyavashyak'' would mean "most important public purpose" and not "urgent public purpose". In this context, a Full Bench Judgment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Gulab Chand Vs. State of M.P., and other decisions in Govindram Ramprasad Vs. Assessing Authority (Sales Tax) and Another, and Satyabhan Singh Jadon Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, can be profitably referred wherein it has been stated that the official language of the State being Hindi, Hindi version of the State Act would prevail for understanding the meaning of any provision of the Act. For all these reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the argument regarding lack of ''urgent public purpose'' must fail.

The petitioners have harped upon the ground that the procedure prescribed u/s. 23-A (2) of the Act has not been followed inasmuch as notices were not published continuously for two days in the local newspapers and that modified plan was not published along-with the newspapers publication at any conspicuous place which is mandatory. The draft modification was published in two daily newspapers on 05.11.2010 and 07.11.2010. It is for this reason, the petitioners have contended that the publication was not continuous as there was gap of one day between 5th November and 7th November. The respondents have stated on affidavit that 5th November 2010 was the day of Diwali festival, therefore, there was no publication of the newspaper on 06.11.2010. According to the State and RDA, since there was no publication at all of the newspapers on 6th November on account of Diwali Festival, the publication of notice on 5th November and 7th November would amount to continuous publication.

While construing the meaning of the term "continuous service" for not less than one year as defined u/s 2 (eee) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, , held that "continuous service" is defined in Section 2 (eee) as meaning uninterpreted service, and includes service which may be interpreted merely on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of workman.

Though in the said case, the employee had not worked for one year i.e., for 12 months, therefore, his continuous service of 240 days was not found sufficient for the purpose of section 25-B and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, however, seeking guidance from the definition of word "continuous service", this Court would hold that when publication of newspaper on 6th November, 2010 on account of Diwali holiday was not in the hands of RDA and the non-publication of newspaper was not due to fault of RDA, the publication on 5th & 7th of November would amount to continuous publication.

Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the submission made by the State and RDA. Had it been a case that the newspaper was published on 6th November and yet the notice was not published on the said issue of the newspaper, the argument raised by the petitioners would carry substance, however, when there was no publication at all because of Diwali festival, it must be treated that the notification was published on two continuous days when the newspaper was published.

On perusal of the advertisement, it would clearly appear that Khasra numbers, names of the villages and the proposed modification are mentioned therein with further statement that the map of modified plan is available for inspection and any aggrieved person can inspect the same. Thus the publication was in accordance with law.

This Court shall now deal with petitioners challenge to the Scheme on the alleged non-compliance of Section 50(1) to Section 50(7) of the Act.

It has been urged by the petitioners that ''declaration of intention'' has not been made as required u/s. 50(1) of the Act, therefore, the Scheme is bad in law and there is no ''declaration of intention'' for the notification u/s. 50(2) published on 04.09.2009 and further that Rule 18 of the C.G. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Niyam, 1975 (for short "Rules, 1975) has not been followed while publishing notification u/s. 50(2), 50(3) & 50(4) of the Act, 1973 and the notices published are not in prescribed form as provided under the Schedules. It has also been urged that notification u/s. 50(8) specifies the Khasra numbers only, therefore, it is not in conformity with the provisions of law. The petitioners have also argued that the RDA has not sought permission of the State Government regarding inclusion of villages Boriya Khurd, Deopuri and Dumartarai before issuing notification dated 25.08.2009 u/s. 50(2) and as such the Scheme is bad in law on this score also.

From the documents available on record, it would appear that in its meeting dated 14.07.2009, the Board of Directors of RDA decided to extend the area of the Scheme and pursuant thereto the RDA informed the State Government that under the amended/revised proposal, the Scheme shall include lands in villages Dunda, Boriyakhurd, Tikrapara, Deopuri and Dumartarai spreading over almost 2300 acres (400 acres originally planned plus 1900 acres extended area). Responding to this proposal, the State Government granted permission on 10.08.2009, therefore, the argument that no permission has been granted for including villages Boriyakhurd, Deopuri and Dumartarai is contrary to record and thus sans substance.

Similarly, pursuant to the State Government''s permission dated 10.08.2009, RDA declared its intention to formulate the Scheme and publish the draft as required u/s. 50(2) of the Act. The Board of Directors declared this intention of RDA on 20.08.2009 by circulation and thereafter the modified/amended notification dated 25.08.2009 was published in the Chhattisgarh Gazette dated 04.09.2009. Thus it cannot be said that there was no ''declaration of intention'' before issuing the amended notification. So far as it relates to argument regarding absence of publication of ''declaration of intention'', it is to be seen that sub-section (1) of Section 50 provides that the Development Authority may, at any time, declare its intention to prepare a Town Development Scheme, however, it does not provide for publication of declaration and no form is prescribed under the Rules, 1975 for issuance of notice to declare its intention.

On a conjoint reading of sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 50 of the Act, 1973 along-with Rule 18 of the Rules 1975, it emerges that in fact, the declaration of intention as mentioned in sub-section (1) is to be published in the official gazette under sub-section (2) and it is precisely for this, Rule 18 makes it obligatory for the Development Authority to publish a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 50 in Form XIII declaring the intention of making the Scheme. In other words, what is to be published is the declaration as required under sub-section (2) of Section 50 and not under sub-section (1) of Section 50. The argument raised by the petitioners on this account is not supported by the provisions of law, therefore, it fails.

The first notification under sub-section (2) of Section 50 was published on 05.06.2009 and prior to that it was also published in the newspaper on 27.05.2009, however, when the boundaries were amended/modified, a fresh notification was published in the official gazette on 04.09.2009 and prior to that it was published in two newspapers on 27.08.2009. The petitioners have objected to the notice on submission that details of the area of each land-holder have not been mentioned. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the form of notice in Form-XIII prescribed under Rule 18 of Rules, 1975 does not prescribe any such format wherein the area of each landholder is to be mentioned. On perusal of Form-XIII, it would appear that the Development Authority is only required to mention the area i.e., the locality and not the area of each Khasra Number because there is no mention under the provisions of the Act or under the Rules or in the Form prescribed that area belonging to each landholder shall be included in the notification. In the gazette notification, RDA has mentioned the boundaries i.e., the outer limit of the Scheme and in the opinion of this Court, such description of the area for which the Scheme is to be prepared cannot be faulted with. More over the publication of notification is with a view to inform the residents of the locality. Most of the petitioners have raised objection to the draft Scheme, therefore, it is not a case where the petitioners were not aware of the preparation of Scheme and because of that they failed to submit their objections. Moreover, in the notification issued under sub-section (3) of Section 50, which was published in the official gazette on 20.11.2009 in the manner prescribed under Form No. XIV, it was clearly mentioned that the draft scheme is available for inspection in the office of RDA as well as in the office of Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Raipur. Therefore, it cannot be said that members of the area were not at all informed about the Scheme.

Another argument has been raised regarding notification issued under sub-section (8) of Section 50 to submit that their land has been taken-over without payment of compensation.

The Chhattisgarh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was amended with effect from 16.06.2010 i.e., the date of publication of the amendment in the official gazette, inter-alia inserting sub-section (8) of Section 50 in the Adhiniyam. The newly inserted sub-section provides that where a Town Development Scheme has come into operation, all land required by the Town and Country Planning Authority for the purposes specified in the following clauses:

(a) Lay out of new streets or roads construction, diversion, extension, alteration, improvement and closing up of streets and roads and discontinuance of communications etc.,

(b) Drainage, inclusive sewerage, surface or sub-soil drainage and sewage disposal;

(c) Lighting;

(d) Water supply

Shall vest absolutely in the Town and Country Department Authority free from all encumbrances and further that nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect any right of the owner on the land vesting in the appropriate authority under that sub-sections.

Thus the newly inserted sub-section specifically provided for vesting of the land so that after coming into operation of the Scheme, the Development Authority does not face any hindrance in commencing infrastructure development activity.

On a reading of the above quoted provision contained in subsection (8) of section 50, it would appear that when a Town Development Scheme has come into operation, all land required by the Authority for the purpose specified under Clauses (a) to (d) of Clause-1 of the said sub-section shall vest absolutely in the Town and Country Development Authority free from all encumbrances, however, the said vesting shall not affect any right of the owner of land vesting in the appropriate authority under that sub-section. The provision would mean that after the notification comes into operation the Development Authority can commence its activity for infrastructure development. However, any right of the land-owner shall not be affected because of such vesting and thus the owner would be entitled to compensation or reconstituted plot in the manner decided by the authority. Even otherwise, this notification has not been called in question and no prayer has been made in any of the writ petition for quashing this notification.

For the foregoing discussion, the petitioners'' argument on this count also deserves to be rejected.

The petitioners have complained that the Committee constituted under sub-section (5) of Section 50 has not applied its mind and while submitting the report under sub-section (6), it has acted in an arbitrary manner. According to the petitioners, their land consists of superstructure built on it and this aspect has not been properly appreciated and the Committee has adopted pick and choose policy while deciding the objections. In W.P. (C). No. 437/2012 learned counsel for the petitioner Shri N.K. Vyas has specifically urged that the land belonging to similarly placed person Ms. Kanta Agrawal was excluded from the Scheme and the petitioners'' land was not excluded even though a superstructure is standing on the land belonging to the petitioners also.

The Committee appears to have undertaken mammoth exercise and has dealt with about 2500 objections and such objectors who appeared before the Committee were also afforded personal hearing.

The Committee obtained report from the revenue authority regarding density of population/construction and on the basis of such report, the thickly populated/densely constructed areas were excluded, however, the scattered superstructure within the Scheme area were identified and depending upon the percentage of construction over the plot, it was decided that if the construction is on less than 35% of the area of the plot proposed to be allotted, the construction would be allowed to remain intact and similarly even if the construction is little more than 35% but the person is earning his livelihood, the same would be allowed and in appropriate cases, cost of the marginal extra land required to retain the construction would be obtained from the landholder. In other cases, when the construction is not exceeding marginally, but is much more than 35%, the same would be demolished and compensation shall be granted and reconstituted plot shall also be allotted to such person. It was also decided that till the time the land owner is able to raise new construction on his allotted plot, he would be given alternative accommodation.

With respect to the allegation that construction belonging to one Kanta Agrawal has been excluded from the Scheme but similar treatment has not been meted out with the petitioner of W.P. (C). No. 437/2012, it has been stated that in the case of Kanta Agrawal, her land/construction was within the densely constructed area, therefore, it was excluded from the Scheme whereas on the land belonging to the petitioner of W.P. (C). No. 437/2012, the construction/land was not falling in a densely constructed area, therefore, the objection was over-ruled. In the opinion of this Court, the explanation offered appears to have substance as it is based on report of revenue authority, therefore, it is not a case of pick and choose but the authority has taken an objective decision depending upon density of construction in the concerned area and the petitioner of W.P. (C). No. 437/2012 has not been singled out for discrimination. Such decision has been taken on the basis of report submitted by the Patwari, therefore, it cannot be said that there was non-application of mind while choosing Kanta Agrawal''s land for exclusion or for not accepting the objection of the petitioner of W.P. (C). No. 437/2012. Similar is the explanation offered in the cases of petitioners Jai Singh Dewangan (W.P. (C). No. 438/2012); Deolal Sahu (W.P. (C). No. 439/2012); Ramesh Chandra Mourya (W.P. (C) No. 461/2012) and Ramjivit Vishwakarma (W.P. No. 462/2012). These petitioners have their construction in isolated and scattered areas and not within the thickly populated/densely constructed area, therefore, their objections were over ruled by the Committee.

Other arguments regarding levying of contribution cost; reserving land for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS); allotting plot upto only 35% of the original area; not following all the recommendations of the Committee; upgradation of plot at higher price etc., have also been raised by the petitioners.

The subject enactment falls under Entry No. 18 of List II and Entry No. 20 of List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. In Maneklal Chhotalal and Others Vs. M.G. Makwana and Others, , the principle of town and country planning has been lucidly dealt with by quoting the principles from a renowned author Lewis Keepl and thereafter meaning of the words ''planning'' in Corpus juris Secondum" has been referred, to mean in connection with the Municipalities, the term connotes a systematic development contrived to promote the common interest in matters embraced within the policy power, with particular reference to the location, character, and extent of streets, squares, parks and to kindred mapping and chatting. In Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 5, "City Planning" is stated to mean: the guidance of the growth and change of urban areas. As such, it is aimed at fulfilling social and economic objectives which go beyond the physical form and arrangement of buildings, streets, parks, utilities and other parts of the urban environment. City planning takes effect largely through the operations of the government and requires the application of specialized techniques of survey, analysis, forecasting and design. Thus, city planning may be described as a social movement, as a Governmental function, or as a technical profession. Each aspect has its own concepts, history and theories. Together they fuse into the effort of modern society to shape and improve the environment within which increasing proportions of humanity spent their lives: the city".

The Adhiniyam has thus been enacted to achieve the object of city planning and is not only for acquiring the land which is otherwise also an incidental matter but mainly for making infrastructure facility for better living to facilitate social intercourse at the societal level by adopting methods of colonization by reconstruction and allotment of plots. The city planning has an inbuilt intention of working in public interest for the benefit of Society.

In the matter of MIG Cricket Club Vs. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that town planning is an expert job. Para 28 of the said judgment can be profitably referred as below:

It is well settled that the user of the land is to be decided by the authority empowered to take such a decision and this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not interfere with the same unless the change in the user is found to be arbitrary. The process involves consideration of competing claims and requirements of the inhabitants in present and future so as to make their lives happy, healthy and comfortable. We are of the opinion that town planning requires high degree of expertise and that is best left to the decision of the State Government to which the advice of the expert body is available. In the facts of the present case, we find that the power has been exercised in accordance with law and there is no arbitrariness in the same.

(Emphasis supplied)

In Greater Kailash Part-II Welfare Association and Others Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and Others, the Supreme Court has held that the writ court is not entitled to sit on appeal over the decision of the Executive Authority based on opinion of experts.

While dealing with the similar provision under the Bombay Town Planning Act, a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat Vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and Others, observed that "in making a town planning scheme" the lands of all persons covered by the scheme are treated as if they are put in a pool and the Town Planning Officer then proceeds to reconstitute the plots for residential buildings and to reserve lands for public purpose. The reconstituted plots are allotted to the land-holders and the reconstituted plots having regard to the exigencies of the Scheme need not be of the same dimensions as the original land. Their shape and size may be altered and even the site of the reconstituted plot allotted to an owner may be shifted. The Town Planning Officer may lay out new roads, divert or close existing roads, reserve lands for recreation grounds, schools, markets, green belts and similar public purposes and provide for drainage, lighting, water supply, filling up or reclamation of low lying, swamp or unhealthy areas or levelling up of lands so that the total area included in the scheme may conduce to the health and well being of the residents. It is further observed that the object of the scheme being to provide amenities for the benefit of the residents generally, the area in the occupation of the individual holders of land is generally reduced, for they have to contribute out of their plot areas which are required for maintaining the services beneficial to the community. In such matter, it is further stated that the cost of the scheme is to be met wholly or in part by contributions to be levied by the local authority on each plot included in the final scheme calculated in proportion to the increment which is estimated to accrue in respect of each plot.

In the said matter Hon''ble the Supreme Court has further considered the meaning of expression "reconstituted plot and its rearrangement" and the underlying principles in the following manner in Paragraphs 15, 16 & 17

The relation between Sections 53 and 67 which have been declared ultravires by the High Court and the other related provisions may now be determined. Section 53 of the Act provides:

On the day on which the final scheme comes into force.-

(a) All lands required by the local authority shall, unless it is otherwise determined in such scheme, vest absolutely in the local authority free from all encumbrances;

(b) All rights in the original plots which have been reconstituted shall determine and the re-constituted plots become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer.

The expression "reconstituted plot" is defined in Section 2(9) as meaning a plot which is in any way altered by the making of a Town Planning Scheme, and by the Explanation the word "altered" includes alteration of ownership. By Cl.(b) of Section 53 ownership in a plot belonging to a person is substituted by the ownership in the reconstituted plot: his ownership in the original plot is extinguished and simultaneously therewith he becomes the owner of a reconstituted plot subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer. On the coming into force of the scheme all lands which are required by the local authority, unless otherwise determined in the scheme, by the operation of Section 53 (a), vest absolutely therein free from all encumbrances. The result is that there is a complete shuffling up of plots of land, roads, means of communication, and rearrangement thereof. The original plots are reconstituted, their shapes are altered, portions out of plots are separated, lands belonging to two or more owners are combined into a single plot, new roads are laid out, old roads are diverted or closed up and lands originally belonging to private owners are used for public purposes i.e., for providing open spaces, green belts, dairies etc. In this process the whole or part of a land of one person, may go to make a reconstituted plot, and the plot so reconstituted may be allotted to another person and the lands needed for public purposes may be earmarked for those purposes.

The re-arrangement of titles in the various plots and reservation of lands for public purposes require financial adjustments to be made. The owner who is deprived of his land has to be compensated, and the owner who obtains a reconstituted plot in surroundings which are conducive to better sanitary living conditions has to contribute towards the expenses of the scheme. This is because on the making of a Town Planning Scheme, the value of the plot raises and a part of the benefit which arises out of the unearned rise in prices is directed to be contributed towards financing of the scheme which enables the residents in that area to more amenities, better facilities and healthier living conditions. For that purpose provision is made in Sec. 65 that the increment shall be deemed to be the amount by which at the date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme, the market value of plot included in the final scheme, estimated on the assumption that the scheme has been completed, would exceed at that date, the market value of the same plot estimated without reference to improvements contemplated by the scheme. By Section 66 the cost of the scheme is required to be met wholly or in part by contributions to be levied by the local authority on each plot included in the final scheme calculated in proportion to the increment which is estimated to accrue in respect of such plot by the Town Planning Officer. Section 67 provides:

The amount by which the total value of the plots included in the final scheme with all the buildings and works thereon allotted to a person falls short of or exceeds the total value of the original plots with all the buildings and works thereon of such person shall be deducted from or added to, as the case may be, the contributions leviable from such persons, each of such plots being estimated at its market value at the date of the declaration of intention to make a scheme or the date of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 24 and without reference to improvements due to the alteration of its boundaries.

Section 67, it will clearly appear, is intended to make adjustments between the right to compensation for loss of land suffered by the owner, and the liability to make contribution to the finances of the scheme; and Section 71 is a corollary to Section 67. Section 71 provides:

If the owner of a original plot is not provided with a plot in the final scheme or if the contribution to be levied from him u/s 66 is less than the total amount to be deducted there from under any of the provisions of this Act, the net amount of his loss shall be payable to him by the local authority in cash or in such other way as may be agreed upon by the parties.

The provisions relating to payment of compensation and recovery of contributions are vital to the successful implementation of the Scheme. The owner of the reconstituted plot who gets the benefit of the scheme must make contribution towards the expenses of the scheme: the owner who loses his property must similarly be compensated. For the purpose of determining the compensation, the Legislature has adopted the basis of market value of land expropriated, but the land is valued not on the date of extinction of the owner''s interest, but on the date of the declaration of intention to make the scheme.

In the matter of Kiritbhai Nandvadan Bhatt and Others Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others, , it has been held that making provision for allotment of land to EWS persons is not prohibited in any law as it is a public purpose. The town planners are within their authority to provide plots to be used for a public purpose, therefore, when plots are reserved for the members of EWS, the same is neither illegal nor arbitrary. In the said case, the concerned Corporation allowed slum dwellers to remain in occupation of Plot No. 463 instead of dislocating them and asking them to shift to Plot No. 187, which was reserved for EWS. Although by permitting this deviation, the land use was violated to some extent but the Supreme Court permitted the same with an observation that even if there is a lapse on the part of the authorities in not meticulously following the procedural requirements, but when substantial justice has been done it would not be proper to interfere in the matter.

The report of the Committee constituted u/s. 50(5) has been filed as Annexure R-3/2, on a reading of which, it would clearly appear that the committee report running into about more than 100 pages have considered all the aspects mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 50 by defining and demarking the areas allotted to or reserved for public purpose; demarking the reconstituted plots; determining as to whether the areas reserved for public purpose are wholly or partially beneficial to the respondents within the area of Scheme; evaluate the value of the original and reconstituted plots; and other matters as contained in Clauses (v), (vi) and (vii) which have been dealt with by mentioning that that they are not applicable because the State Government has decided not to seek payment of incremental cost/contribution cost from the land-holder on account of development of area while prescribing the size of the reconstituted plots for which respective landholders would be entitled. It was decided by the Committee, after considering the provisions of National Building Code of India, 2005 and C.G. Land Development Rules 1984, that the minimum size of the reconstituted plots should be 50 square meters and the persons who are holding smaller plots upto 1500 sq.ft. shall be allotted reconstituted plots of 40-43% area; those who possess plots of size 1500 sq.ft. to 2900 sq.ft., shall be provided plots having 35-36% of the original area and those persons who are holding the land more than 2900 square feet shall be allotted/reconstituted plot of an area equal to 35% of their original area.

This Court has gone through the report on item No. 4 i.e., reconstituted plots recommended by the Committee only to find that the matter has been considered by the Committee in an elaborate manner after considering the relevant parameters, therefore, the recommendation on this aspect is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor can be said to be without application of mind or irrational. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioners on this aspect also deserves to be rejected.

It has also been argued that the area of reconstituted plot is much less than the area of original plot, therefore, it amounts to deprivation of land and hence the Scheme of reconstitution of plots is arbitrary and confiscatory being violative of Article 31 of the Constitution of India.

The above argument appears to be attractive, however, while dealing with similar argument, the Supreme Court in the matter of Maneklal Chhotalal (Supra) has held that the petitioners may have originally owned larger extents of land, in different areas, which may or may not be fit for building purposes, there can be no controversy that the reconstituted plots, though of a lesser area, have a higher value, as building sites, in view of various improvements and amenities provided under the Town Planning Scheme. What parties, like the petitioners, may have lost in actual area of land, can certainly be considered to have been more than sufficiently compensated by the increased value of the reconstituted plots. There is no question of any deprivation of property, therefore, so as to attract Article 31 of the Constitution.

The Scheme in question is formulated in exactly the same manner in which the Scheme before the Supreme Court in the above referred matter of Maneklal Chhotalal (supra) was formulated, in so far as it concerns reconstitution of plots and allotment of reconstituted plots to the landholders. Since the law has been settled by the Supreme Court, this Court does not find any arbitrariness much less deprivation of property when the area of reconstituted plots allotted to the landholders are less than their original area.

Regarding reservation of land for EWS dealt with as Item No. 6, the Committee proceeded to examine the provisions of RDP 2021, C.G. Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer Terms and Conditions) Rules 1998, C.G. Gram Panchayat (Registration of Colonizer Terms and Conditions) Rules 1999; National Urban Housing and Environment Policy 2007 and the Provisions of Adhiniyam 1973. Referring to the National Housing Policy 2007, the Committee elaborately discussed that the said Policy lays special emphasis for making provision of housing for weaker section and lower income groups. It is to be seen that u/s. 49 of the Adhiniyam, a Town Development Scheme has to make provision for acquisition and development of land for public purpose such as housing development and it is the duty of the Committee to address itself to define and demark the areas allotted to or reserved for public purpose while making proposal under sub-section (6) of Section 50. In other words, the housing development is one of the public purpose and when it is meant for EWS class of persons, it cannot be said that such provision cannot be made. In any case, there is no restriction or prohibition for reserving the land for persons belonging to EWS. Annexure R-3/10 is the Housing Policy of Chhattisgarh which also makes provision for reserving the land for EWS category and the National Building Code of India (Annexure R-3/11) has also high-lighted housing requirement of EWS category and has thereafter recommended that special action plan should be prepared for urban slum dwellers. Thus, considering from all angles, reservation of land for EWS is in public interest and the same being in conformity with the States Housing Policy as well as National Housing Policy is in consonance with the public policy, therefore, it is not unlawful. Anything which is for welfare of weaker sections of Society will not be branded as illegal when the subject enactment does not prohibit making such reservation. When there is no specific provision for a particular action but the authority while making such provision/action is guided by State Policy and National Policy, the action can never be branded as arbitrary.

It is also put-forth by the petitioners that as per the environment clearance certificate, RDA has to maintain 185 hectares of green area, however, from the final scheme; it would appear that green area is much less than that, therefore, there being clear violation, the environment certificate and the scheme cannot be acted upon. In the area analysis of town development scheme No. 4 Kamal Vihar, which is part of Annexure R-3/2, an area of 25.43 hectares has been reserved for city park and 103.98 hectares for regional park. There is another area of 0.83 hectares for water bodies. The total of these areas is a little more than 130 hectares. It has been stated by RDA that there would be extensive road side plantation along all the major roads as well as sector roads and the green area would cover more than 185 hectares. Apart from that, community open space, graveyard/cremation grounds and play grounds would cover more than 40 hectares of land. From the area analysis of the scheme and the statement made by learned counsel for the RDA, this Court is satisfied that the green area in the scheme, as per the terms of the environment clearance is not violated. Even otherwise, it is to be seen that the project is not an industrial project and there would be no such pollution such as it happens in a chemical factory or thermal power plant.

The petitioners have further assailed the Scheme on the ground that environmental clearance has not been obtained from appropriate authority i.e., the Central Government, therefore, the Scheme is vitiated and deserves to be quashed on this ground also. Indisputably, the environment clearance has been obtained from State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority vide its order dated 25.01.2011. According to the notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) dated 14.09.2006, there are two categories of projects, namely Category ''A'' and Category ''B'', which require environment clearance by the respective authorities. While category ''A'' projects have to seek clearance from Central Government, the projects falling under Category ''B'' are required to seek clearance from State Level Environment Impact Authority. The present project is covered under Clause VIII (b) of the notification as it covers an area of more than 50 hectares for township and area development projects and is appraised as Category ''B-1'' project.

In the return filed by the Central Government in W.P. (C). No. 6040/2011 (the writ petition was later on withdrawn), the Central Government has categorically stated that the subject project has been duly cleared by appropriate authority i.e., the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Thus, in view of the categorical assertion by the central government, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondents have obtained environment clearance in terms of notification dated 14.09.2006.

Another argument has been raised that the notification dated 04.03.2011 is not authenticated in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is not a notification in the eye of law and for this, the Scheme deserves to be quashed. The respondent State has explained that when several notifications of the concerned department are published together, it is the established practice that the authentication as required under Article 166 of the Constitution of India is mentioned in the last notification of the series. Such practice has been approved to be a valid exercise of power by a Division Bench of M.P. High Court in the matter of Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, . In the present case also, there are more than one notification including the notification dated 04.03.2011 which were published on the same day and the last notification bears the authentication of the Governor, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the M.P. High Court in the matter of Iftikhar (supra), there is no substance in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification is not properly authenticated.

Yet another ground has been raised by the petitioners that the Scheme being essentially u/s. 49 (viii) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, no land can be acquired for the Scheme as the said clause provides for reconstruction of plots for the purpose of buildings, roads, drains, sewage lines and other similar amenities but does not provide for acquisition of land for such matters.

Section 49 of the Adhiniyam provides that the town development scheme may make provision for any of the matters as provided under Clauses (i) to (ix). Clause (iii) speaks about the acquisition and development of land for public purposes such as housing development, development of shopping centers, cultural centers and administrative centers. Similarly, other clauses provide for acquisition, development and sale or leasing of land for the purpose of town expansion and for commercial and industrial purposes; for the purpose of laying out or remodeling of road and street patterns; for play grounds, parks, recreation centers and stadia. Section 50 of the Adhiniyam prescribes the procedure as to how a town development scheme is to be prepared and sub-section (5) thereof provides for constitution of a Committee where the town development Scheme relates to reconstitution of plots and the Committee has been enjoined with the duty to consider several aspects as mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vii) of sub-section (6) which include evaluation of the value of original and reconstituted plots, payments of compensation or obtaining contribution from the beneficiaries of the Scheme on account of reconstitution of the plots etc., etc. A conjoint reading of Sections 49 & 50 makes it absolutely clear that the present Scheme is not only u/s 49 (viii) but it is a Scheme as a whole u/s. 49 & 50. The Entire procedure prescribed u/s. 50 has been followed by the RDA, therefore, the arguments raised by the petitioners to the contrary by treating the same as if it is a scheme only u/s. 49 (viii) is absolutely misconceived.

The petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 759/2011 has argued that the petitioner''s land is situated at a distance of more than one kilometer from the terminal end of the scheme and is thus segregated from the main area, yet his land has been included in a malafide manner. He would submit that the land adjacent to the petitioner''s land has been excluded from the Scheme and there is no contiguity of the other scheme area with the area belonging to the petitioner. According to the RDA, when the draft scheme was notified inviting objections, the land of the petitioner was contiguous, however, when a patch of thickly populated/densely constructed area falling between the petitioner''s land and the main scheme land was excluded upon considering the report of the revenue authorities, petitioner''s land was segregated and it is not a case that from the very beginning his land was included even though it was segregated from the main area. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner''s land is connected with the Scheme area through the Highway.

On perusal of the relevant map, it would appear that there are other lands situated along-with the land of petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 759/2011. There is village settlement of Dumartarai, which is coming within the boundary of town development scheme. However, the said area was left out to avoid large scale demolition because it is thickly populated. Further the petitioner has not raised any such objection regarding non-contiguity of the land when the matter was considered by the Committee constituted u/s. 50(5) of the Adhiniyam. In Babulal Badriprasad Varma Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and Others, , it has been held that if no objection is raised before the Committee in respect of the draft scheme the petitioners are estopped from raising such contentions before the writ court. Thus the petitioner is also estopped from questioning the Scheme on this ground which was not raised before the Committee.

There is yet another reason why this argument raised in W.P. (C). 759/2011 sans substance because the land in question is covered under sector 14-B and 15-C of the sanctioned lay out plan of the Scheme. These sectors cover an area of 22 acres belonging to 19 land owners. Thus, it is not a case where the petitioner has been singled out for inclusion in the scheme and more over, according to RDA all other land owners have either consented or have not objected to the scheme as they have not preferred any writ petition. Thus, the action of RDA in including the land belonging to the petitioners of W.P. (C). No. 759/2011 is not arbitrary or malafide.

The petitioners have also objected to the use of the term "integrated township" in all the correspondences prior to finalization of the Scheme to submit that the RDA, in fact, wanted to frame a scheme for "integrated township" and not a town development scheme and since "integrated township" is a concept under "Bhumi Vikas Rules 1984", the Scheme in question prepared under the Adhiniyam 1973 is not in accordance with law.

This Court has gone through the documents concerning the procedure followed by the RDA for preparing/finalizing the Scheme only to find that the RDA has never referred to Bhumi Vikas Rules 1984 (for short "Rules, 1984") even though initially the term "integrated township" was used. If the Scheme has been prepared under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973, mere use of the words "integrated township" which is otherwise defined and used in the Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984, would not vitiate the exercise under the Adhiniyam, 1973. Had it been a case that initially an "integrated township" under the Rules, 1984 was conceived and processed but it was left midway and thereafter the development authority took shelter of the provisions of the Adhiniyam 1973, there might have been some substance in the argument regarding nomenclature, however, since Rules 1984 were never invoked, there is absolutely no substance in the argument raised by the petitioners and this ground of challenge must also fail.

It is settled law that when the decision making authority has been vested with power to do a particular thing, mere quoting of wrong provision does not invalidate the action. See MIG Cricket Club Vs. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society (Supra). Drawing the analogy from the said legal principle, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that mere quoting of different name which is otherwise referred in the Bhoomi Vikas Rules 1984, is not fatal for the subject Scheme which is otherwise formulated under the Adhiniyam 1973.

Having dealt with the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to some other aspects of the matter as they have material bearing on the outcome of the writ petition and the respondents have also raised these objections.

The petitioners have challenged the Scheme prepared by the RDA on the ground that master plan has been notified after preparation of the Scheme. However, they have chosen not to assail the validity of the modified master plan. In absence of such challenge, the revised plan has merged into and has become a part of the original plan, therefore, once it is held that the modified master plan cannot be quashed, the petitioners may not challenge the Scheme on the ground that it is not in conformity with the master plan. In fact, the Scheme itself could have been challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision petition u/s. 51 of the Adhiniyam, however, none of the petitioners have preferred any revision u/s. 51 of the Adhiniyam and have chosen to approach this Court directly. Many grounds have been raised before this Court and they have been dealt with, however, most of the arguments were not raised before the Authority or the Committee constituted u/s. 50(4) of the Adhiniyam. In Babulal Badriprasad Varma Vs. Surat Municipal Corporation and Others, the Supreme Court has held that once the petitioners filed objections but did not pursue it, they cannot raise grounds at subsequent stage. Similarly, in Sanjai Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. State of M.P. and Others, it has been held by the M.P. High Court that the petitioners could have placed all the facts in detail before the revisional authority and had an opportunity to say that the action of the Development Authority is discriminatory, but it appears that the petitioners claiming discrimination had not resorted to this remedy available to them. Therefore, such plea cannot be considered. Similar is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Raipur Development Authority Vs. Anupam Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti and Others, . The petitioners have raised grounds regarding non-issuance of notice in prescribed form or other kinds of procedural violation. In this context, this Court would refer to judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Shambhu Prasad Sharma Vs. Shri Charandas Mahant and Others, wherein it has been held that when a substantial compliance with the requirement as to form is made, every departure from the prescribed format cannot be made a ground for rejection of nomination paper. Thus if the substantial compliance has been made which this Court has already found to have been complied with, the impugned Scheme cannot be quashed.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any substance in any of the writ petitions. Consequently, all the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.