P. D. Sharma ( 1 ) THIS writ petition by Shri masi Kamla Bhandari and Shrimati Kaushalaya Devi against the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Delhi Standing Committee, Municipal Corporation Delhi, Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Delhi development Authority, New Delhi respondents Nos. I to V under Article 226 of the Constitution has arisen out of the following circumstances: - ( 2 ) THE two petitioners, their sisters and sisters-in-law owned the land comprising Khasra numbers 373, 374, and 494/375 situate in area of village Kharera, Tehsil Delhi. Petitioner No. 2 for the planned development of the aforesaid land applied to respondents Nos. II to IV for sanction of a layout plan. Subsequently respondent No. 1i on 9th April, 1959, directed the petitioners to submit the services plan which was done by them on 6th December. 1959, in collaboration with their other relatives who owned land closely. This plan was considered by respondent No. 1ii in the meeting held on 17th February, 1960, when a decision in the terms as given below was taken (Annexure I) : "the applicant wanted to have seven additional plots by reducing the open space earmarked in the Sector Plan but the Commissioner agreed to recommend her case if only five additional plots were provided in the layout plan. "petitioner No. 2 in persuance of the aforesaid decision received a. comunication from respondent No, IV on 4th May, 1960, vide letter (Annexure II) which amongst other things also provided : "if the suggestion is acceptable to you, yon may please submit complete documents, plans and other information, for your proposal as required under section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 so that the case could be scrutinised and for warded to the standing Commiitee for necessary action. "petitioner No 1 also received back along with this letter the layout plan (Annexure II-A) suggesting the argument of the five plots as acceptable to the Corporation authorities. There upon petitioner No. 2 to cut short the matter submitted the plan on the lines suggested by the Corporation authorities but it was not sactioned within the stipulated period of 60 days as provided in section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hemin after referred to as the Act ). There upon petitioner No. 2 to cut short the matter submitted the plan on the lines suggested by the Corporation authorities but it was not sactioned within the stipulated period of 60 days as provided in section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hemin after referred to as the Act ). The Chief Commissioner by Notification No. F 15 (245)60-LSG/land H dated 24th October, 1961 (Annexure IV) issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, also acquired the land belonging to the petitioners. This Notification provided: "it is here by notified that the land, measuring about 16,000 acres and marked with blocks Nos. I to 24, and coloured blue, in the enclosed map (Annexure I) and the discription of which has been given in Annexure II, excepting the following lands in blocks referred herein : (a)* * * * * * (b)* * * * * * (e) the land in respect of which layout plans and services plans have been Sanctioned by the competent authorities before 24th October, 1961. (d)* * * * * * * * is likely to be required for the above purpose. "the petitioners alleged that in tern, of the above exception in the Notification their land in question coyld not be deemed to have been notified under section 4 for acquisition on the grounds as reproduced below:- (I) That in t rms of section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and particularly in terms of delay of more than sixty days on the part of respondent No. 1ii, the petitioners cannot be stopped from utilising or otherwise dealing" with their lands in terms of the specific provisions of section 313 (3) and (5) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. (ii) That section 313, sub-section (3) gives a limited power to the Corporation to sanction a lay out or refuse to sanction a lay out or to ask for further information but it does not, especially when read with sub-section (5) of section 313 of the said Act gives power to the Corporation to with hold sanction indefinitely, and if it withholds sanction, the owner of the land is within his or her right to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land or the layout and in this context the Addition of the words layout in the Act is significant. They prayed inter alia that an appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting the respondents from interfering in any manner whatsoever with their rights in respect of the land in dispute and from utilising or from otherwise dealing with the same or layout as contemplated in section 313 (5) of the Act be issued. The other reliefs and the grounds urged in support thereof where not referred to at the time of the arguments and so these need not be noticed here. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 did not file any affidavit himself but an affidavit was filed on his behalf by Shri K. L. Rathee Housing Commissioner and Secretary, Local Self Government, Delhi Administration. Respondents Nos. II to IV also filed an affidavit. In none of these documents the petitioners allegation that they in compliance with the directions of respondent No. 1ii which were comunicated to them by respondent No. 1v submitted a revised layout plan for sanction by the competent authorities as hadbeen alleged by them in paragraphs 6,7 (a), (b), and 8 of their writ petition. It cannot be denied that respondent No. 1v on 8th December, 1960 (Annexure V) addressed a letter to petitioner No. 2 in the following terms: "please refer to this office letter No. TP/11/60/1358 dated 18th November 1960. The information asked in the above quoted letter, i. e. , to submit authority letters from all persons, who are owners of the partial land covered by the revised layout plan of Kaushalya Park Colony, saying that they have no objection in your developing the land for the purpose of a residential colony, may please be submitted at an early date. Please note that the time limit will start from the date, the information is received in this office. "petitioner No. 2 on 19th December, 1960, sent her reply to the above letter which can best be reproduced in her own words. "i am herewith submitting four letters of authority, as required by yon vide your letter No. TP/11/60/1358 dated 18th November. 1960. I shall be grateful if you please now send the said scheme to the Standing Committee forfinal approval. "strangely enough the competent authorities rejected the layout plans submitted by the petitioners not within sixty days as provided in section 313 of the act but long after, i. e. , on 9th February, 1962 (annexure I ). 1960. I shall be grateful if you please now send the said scheme to the Standing Committee forfinal approval. "strangely enough the competent authorities rejected the layout plans submitted by the petitioners not within sixty days as provided in section 313 of the act but long after, i. e. , on 9th February, 1962 (annexure I ). ( 4 ) IT was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the respodents could have rejected their plans within sixty days from the reciept of their reply dated 19th December, 1960 (Annexure V) i. e. , by or on 18th February, 1961 and they could not have kept it pending for a longer period. Therefore, their order dated 9th February, 1962 (Annexure 1) rejecting their layout plans was invalid and in oparative. It was also urged that the omission of the respondents to reject their plans within sixty days from 19th December, 1960, entitled them to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land in the manner they liked and the restriction imposed by section 312/313 of the Act did not apply to the same. In this connection reference was made to section 313 of the Act the relevant portion of which runs as under : "313. (5) No person shall utilise, sell or otherwisa deal with any land or lay-out cr make any new street without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Standing Committee and if further information is asked for, no step shall be taken utiise, sell or otherwise deal with the land or to layout or make the street until orders have been passed upon receipt of such information. Provided that the passing of such orders shall not be in any cass delayed for more than sixty days after the Standing. Committee failed the informatoin which is considers necessary to enable it to deal with the said application. "there is no doubt that the provision of law relied upon by the pettioner does support their view-point. Unmistakable, the Standing Committee failed to reject the layout plans submitted by the petitioners within sixty days of the receipt of information asked for by the Town Planner in his letter (Annexure V) and as such no power vested in it to reject the plans aslate as 9th February, 1962. Unmistakable, the Standing Committee failed to reject the layout plans submitted by the petitioners within sixty days of the receipt of information asked for by the Town Planner in his letter (Annexure V) and as such no power vested in it to reject the plans aslate as 9th February, 1962. The time limit prescribed in the provise to sub-section (5) of section 313 of the Act explicitly mentions that the passing of relevant orders should not in any case be delayed for more than sixty days after the Standing Committee has received the information which it considers necessary to enable it to deal with the said plans. Then the Standing Committee failed to exercise the power vested in it by law withhin the time prescribbed the petitioners who owned the land could utilise, sell or otherwise deal with it or layout or make any new street and they were not bound to wait ad-infinitem for the Standing Committee to sanction or-reject the layout plans submitted by them. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 313 of the Act did not say in so many words that if the layout plan was not rejected within sixty days it should be deemed to have been passed as such the petitioners under the law could not utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land or layout or make any new street without or otherwise then in conformity with the orders of the Standing Committee. In Support of their argument they referred to section 337 of the Act which relates to the building plans, wherein it is provided that if the plan was not rejected within certain specified period of its receipt etc. , it should be deemed tohave been passed. This section appears in some other context and the phraseology of it cannot be taken advantage of while interpreting section 313 of the Act, the provision of which to my mind are explicit and mandatory and admit of no exception. Consequently, when the Standing Committee omitted to reject the layout plans within sixty days of the receipt of further information which was supplied to it on 19th December, 1960, these could have been considered as passed. In the circumstances the petitioners are entitled to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land in dispute or layout or make any new street. In the circumstances the petitioners are entitled to utilise, sell or otherwise deal with the land in dispute or layout or make any new street. Their case stood covered by exception (e) in pragraph paragraph 2 of the Chief Commissioner s Notification (Annexure IV ). Therefore the proposed acquisition of 1600 acres of land by the said Notification does not cover the land in question. ( 5 ) FOR the above reasons the, petition is accepted and it is directed that the respondents should not interfere in any manner whatsoever with the rights of the petitioners in respect of the land in dispate and from utilising or from otherwise dealing with the said land or layout as contemplated in section 313 (5) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.