T. V. R. TATACHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by thepetitioners, namely, ( 1 ) Delhi State Government Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. , Delhi, (2) Shri B. P. Jain, President of the said Society and (3) Shri Gopal Krishan, Secretary of thesaid Society, praying (1) that the respondents, namely, (1) the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the "corporation") and (2) The Commissioner, Municipal Corportion of Delhi, bedirected to take over and maintain the civic amenities and other statutory and public services of the colony established and developed by theaforesaid Society which enjoined upon them by section 42 of the Delhimunicipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the "corporation Act"); and (2) that the respondents be restrained from levying and collecting any taxes by way of property tax, water tax, scavenging tax and general tax from the residents of the colony unless anduntil the said services and civic amenities are provided to the houseowners and the residents of the colony. ( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a Society registered in 1955 under the Bombayco-operative Societies Act, 1955, as extended to Delhi, Petitionerno. 2 is the President of the Society, and Petitioner No. 3 is the Secretary of the Society. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of thesociety and its members through petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 who areduly authorised to file the petition by a resolution passed on 19-7-1970 (Annexure K ). The facts which have given rise to this writ petition, as stated inthe writ petition, are as follows : The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, acquired a piece of land measuring 83 bighas, 14 biswas. situate in village Rajpur Chhavni, bearing Khasra Nos. 108 and 109, for thebenefit of low paid employees of the Delhi State who later formedthemselves into a Co-operative Society under the name and style ofdelhi State Government Employees House Building Society, Petitionerno. 1 herein. The said land fell within the area notified under section 12 (1) of Delhi Development Act, 1957. It was, therefore, necessary to obtain the approval of the Delhi Development Authority forthe development of the said land into a residential colony. Thesociety, therefore, submitted a lay-out plan for the approval of thedelhi Development Authority. The said Authority approved the layout plan by its Resolution No. 306, dated 27-7-1963, subject to certain terms and conditions. It was, therefore, necessary to obtain the approval of the Delhi Development Authority forthe development of the said land into a residential colony. Thesociety, therefore, submitted a lay-out plan for the approval of thedelhi Development Authority. The said Authority approved the layout plan by its Resolution No. 306, dated 27-7-1963, subject to certain terms and conditions. A copy of the approved lay-out plan hasbeen filed as Annexure a and it shows that the area was divided into 192 residential plots of different measurements. The plan also showsthat the Society reserved a certain extent of land for a school and alsoset apart vacant spaces for community requirements such as roads,service lanes, parks. Community Centre etc. According to the petitioners, the Society developed the land complying with all the requirements specified by the Development Authority. It is stated in thewrit petition that metal roads, lanes, sewer lines, water lines and street lights were provided according to the specifications laid down by thedevelopment Authority. After the development of the area, the plotswere allotted by the Society to its members. After fully developing the area, the Society approached the Development Authority for permission for construction of buildings by themembers and the Authority required the Society to enter into an agreement with the Authority regarding, transfer of Community facilities suchas parks etc. to the Development Authority free of cost as a conditionprecedent to the grant of permission to commence the constructionof buildings on the developed land. The Development Authorityalso resquired the Society to transfer the site reserved for school tothe Directorate of Education Delhi. The Society, in compliance withthe above requirements, entered into an agreement, dated 22-8-1964whereby the Society agreed to transfer free of cost the land underroads, lanes, parks, open spaces, Community Centres, schools, hospitals, dispensaries and other places for the general public along withstreet lighting, water supply, sewarage etc. The Society also madeover the area of land earmarked for the school to the Directorate ofeducation, Delhi. After thus complying, with the conditions laid by the Developmentauthority, the Society sought permission of the Development Authority to begin the construction of buildings in the colony which cameto be called the "c. C. Colony". By a letter (Annexure B), dated 12-2-1965, Shri B. C. Sarkar, Administrative Officer, Delhi Developmentauthority, informed the Town Planner. After thus complying, with the conditions laid by the Developmentauthority, the Society sought permission of the Development Authority to begin the construction of buildings in the colony which cameto be called the "c. C. Colony". By a letter (Annexure B), dated 12-2-1965, Shri B. C. Sarkar, Administrative Officer, Delhi Developmentauthority, informed the Town Planner. Municipal Corporation ofdelhi, that by Resolution No. 306, dated 27-7-1963, the Development Authority had resolved.-" (a) that the revised layout plan of the Society beapproved; (b) that there was no objection to the seweragesystem being connected at two points on the G. T. Roadsubject to the Society obtaining the prior approval of themunicipal Corporation of Delhi; and (c) that there was no objection to dry system latrinesfor the interim period subject to the Society obtaining periorapproval of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. "it was also stated in the said letter that the Development Authorityhad passed Resolution No. 10, dated 30-1-1964, in which it wasdecided to delegate powers to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi toscrutinise and dispose of "building applications from developmentareas" and that the Society s land being within the development areaof the Delhi Development Authority, the Corporation would be competent to dispose of building applications in respect of the said land. A, copy of the agreement executed by the Society in favour of thedevelopment Authority and a copy of each of the completion plansfor each service were enclosed. The letter concluded with a request thatindividual building plans from the plot holders of the C. C. Colony maybe entertained, and that necessary arrangements "for the taking overof the services from the Delhi Development Authority for maintanance" may be made. By a letter (Annexure C), dated 5-3-1965, the Town Planner ofthe Corporation, in reply to the aforesaid letter (Annexure B), dated12-2-1965, informed the Administrative Officer of the Developmentauthority that necessary action, as desired, was being taken by hisoffice, and the Development Authority may be pleased to supply sixcopies of the approved layout plan along with a line tracing of thesame. By a letter (Annexure C), dated 5-3-1965, the Town Planner ofthe Corporation, in reply to the aforesaid letter (Annexure B), dated12-2-1965, informed the Administrative Officer of the Developmentauthority that necessary action, as desired, was being taken by hisoffice, and the Development Authority may be pleased to supply sixcopies of the approved layout plan along with a line tracing of thesame. The Town Planner also stated in the said letter as follows:- "as soon as the plans REFERRED TO to above are received, itwould be possible for the Building Department of the Corporation to accept the building applications for consideration on usual terms and conditions as per Corporation Actand Bye-laws for the area covered by the Colony of Delhistate Government Employees Co-operative House Buildingsociety opposite Rana Partap Bagh, G. T. Road, Delhi. "on 25-5-1965, the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporationof Delhi, issued an office order No. MW/arch/5/65/271 (Annexure-D), which reads as follows:-"the newly developed colony of Delhi State Employeescooperative House Building Society opposite Rana Pratapbagh falls in developed area. The layout plan of this Colonywas approved by D. D. A. On request from D. D. A. the individual building plans forthis Colony will be scrutinized by the Building Departmentof theMunicipal Corporation of Delhi on usual charge offee and other conditions as applicable in case of the plots falling in Corporation area. As reported the development work inthe colony has been completed but in the absence of mainmunicipal sewers it will not be possible to have sewer system in the Colony and therefore under Commissioner sorders the building plans for this colony should be entertained for consideration and disposal on dry latrines system. The Society will, however, be under obligation to connecttheir sewer system with the main Municipal sewer as soonas the same is provided there. The above order is forwarded to the following for information and necessary action. sd/-N. N. TANDONDeputy Commissioner (E)1. E. E. (B) to allow building activity on usual termsand conditions on the basis of the set back plans approvedby the Committee, copy of which will be forwarded byj. T. P. (G) to E. E. (B) and Z. A. E. (B) Civil Lines Zone. 2. Copy to Shri L. D. Gupta, Secretary, Delhi Stategovt. sd/-N. N. TANDONDeputy Commissioner (E)1. E. E. (B) to allow building activity on usual termsand conditions on the basis of the set back plans approvedby the Committee, copy of which will be forwarded byj. T. P. (G) to E. E. (B) and Z. A. E. (B) Civil Lines Zone. 2. Copy to Shri L. D. Gupta, Secretary, Delhi Stategovt. Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. C/o Budget Officer, Finance Department, Delhi Administration, 5, Alipur Road, Delhi, to confirm that the Societywill undertake the work of connecting their sewer lines withthe Municipal Mains as and when the same are provided. He should also undertake that in case as and when thecolony is to be taken over by the Municipal Corporationof Delhi the entire development work including roads andlanes in particular will be brought to the proper standardsby removing of deficiencies caused during the period building activity is gaining on in the Colony. ( 3 ) Z. A. E. (B) Civil Lines Zone will please follow thesame procedure REFERRED TO to in E. E. (B) s endorsement. ( 4 ) Z. A. C. (Civil Lines Zone) for information andnecessary action. ( 5 ) A. A. (S) will please issue set back plans to E. E. (B)and Z. A. E. (B), Civil Lines Zone immediately. ( 6 ) 6. A. A. (D. P.) for information and necessary action. N. N. TANDONsd/-25-5-1965dty. Commissioner (E)"according to the petitioners, although the building activities hadactually commenced in the year 1965, the Corporation started levying property tax both on constructed houses and vacant plots in thecolony from 1-4-1962, and had collected by the date of the writ petition about rupees five lakhs by way of taxes from the members of thesociety and residents of colony as detailed under :- (a) Vacant land tax. . . . Rs. 60,000. 00 (b) Property tax. . . . Rs. 3,50,000. 00 (c) Penalty for deviations (d) Plan fee (e) Road cutting charges Rs. 90,000. 00 (f) Recoveries for storing building material on roads and pavements Total: Rs. 5,00,000. 00at or about the time of filing this writ petition, the Corp6rationwas taking steps for recovering property tax in the year 1970-71. According to the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the Corporationto make adequate provision by means or measures which it may lawfully use or take for each of the following matters, viz. 5,00,000. 00at or about the time of filing this writ petition, the Corp6rationwas taking steps for recovering property tax in the year 1970-71. According to the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the Corporationto make adequate provision by means or measures which it may lawfully use or take for each of the following matters, viz. "a) the construction, maintenance and cleaning of drainsand drainage works and public latrines, urinals andsimilar conveniences; (b) the construction and maintenance of works and means for providing supply of water for public andprivate purposes; and (c) the scavenging, removal and disposal of filth, rubbish and obnoxious or pollutive matters",for the C. C. colony, as they were statutory duties cast upon therespondents, by virtue of section 42 of the Delhi Municipal Act. The petitioners averred in the writ petition that the Corporationis not entitled to recover proper taxes from the owners of the buildingsin. The petitioners averred in the writ petition that the Corporationis not entitled to recover proper taxes from the owners of the buildingsin. the colony unless and until it is in a position to comply with the statutory requirements under section 42 the Corporation Act; that thecorporation has never been able to maintain unrestricted supply offiltered water for the owners of lands and buildings within the colony;that due to its inability to supply drinking water for meeting the requirement in full of the residents of the colony, the Commissioner ofthe Corporation had directed a restricted supply of water with theapproval of the Corporation in January, 1967, and stated that thearea of the colony will not be notified for water tax for the time beingand the same will be done when the water supply is augmented andample supply is made available, and that recovery of water chargesfor the water supplied will be effected on the basis of meter reading;that although the development and improvement in the colony hadbeen done to the satisfaction of the Corporation authorities, the saidauthorities had neglected to maintain the roads, drains, parks andother objects of Community utility; that a representation (Annexure-E) was made to the Commissioner on 7-7-1969 that in case thecorporation does not take over the services of the colony within amonth and provide civic amenities, the house owners would be compelled to stop payment of further taxes; and that with a view to avoidthe performance of the statutory duties, the Corporation sent a letter (Annexure F), dated 13-10-1969, to the Society stating, inter alia,that the various services-departments of the Corporation estimated thetotal cost of deficiencies in the services laid by the Society in thecolony at about Rs. 1,38,951. 00, and the same may be paid to thecorporation to meet the cost of deficiencies in the services of thecolony so that the Corporation could take over the services. ( 7 ) THE costs of various deficiencies mentioned in the letter (Annexure-F) are as under :- " (I) Roads and storm water drains. . Rs. 21,250. 00 (ii) Removal of Malba from the site. . Rs. 860. 00 (iii) Sewerage system. . . . Rs. 1,235. 00 (iv) Proportionate cost for outfall stormwater drains. . . . Rs. 62,300. 00 (v) Horticulture work. . . . Rs. 48,156. 00 (vi) Health and sanitation. . . . Rs. 5,150. 00total cost of deficiencies. . . . Rs. 00 (ii) Removal of Malba from the site. . Rs. 860. 00 (iii) Sewerage system. . . . Rs. 1,235. 00 (iv) Proportionate cost for outfall stormwater drains. . . . Rs. 62,300. 00 (v) Horticulture work. . . . Rs. 48,156. 00 (vi) Health and sanitation. . . . Rs. 5,150. 00total cost of deficiencies. . . . Rs. 138951"on representations made by the Society, the Corporation sent a letter (Annexure G), dated 30-9-1970, stating that by Resolution No 182 dated 30-7-1970, the W. S. and S. D. Committee had resolved that thesewerage services of the colony may be taken over, and that theproportionate charges for the outfall storm water drain were not tobe recovered from the Society. Again, by a letter(Annexure H),dated 26-9-1970, the Corporation informed the petitioners that thecost of fencing and grassing the open space would be Rs. 20,500. 00and not Rs. 48,156. 00. The case of the petitioners is that the alleged deficiencies were imaginary, and were only a pretext for avoiding performance of the Corporation s legal duties as is indicated by theaforesaid letters, and that the Society had completed the laying of grassand the making of fences long before 25-5-1965 when the commissioner stated in his office note (Annexure D), dated 25-5-1965,that the development work in the colony had been completed. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition on 3-11-1970,alleging that the Corporation was bound to take over the services inthe colony and provide all civic amenities to the residents of thecolony as required by section 42 of the Municipal Corporation Act,and that the Corporation has no right to recover property taxes fromthe residents of the colony unless and until it performs its duties andprovides civic amenities in the colony. They prayed (1) that therespondents may be directed to take over and maintain the civicamenities and other statutory and public services of the colony whichare enjoined upon them by section 42 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and (2) that the respondents be restrained from levying,charging, demanding and collecting property tax which includes watertax, scavenging tax and general tax unless and until the said servicesand civic amenities are provided to the house owners and residents ofthe C. C. Colony. ( 9 ) IN opposition to the writ petition, a reply supported by an affidavit of Shri G. R. Joshi, Assistant Assessor and Collector, has beenfiled on behalf of the respondents. In the said reply, it was firstlystated that the Society was not competent to file the writ petition onbehalf of its members as regards matters which personally affectedthe members of the Society individually and not the Society as such,and that since the Society, as such, was not taxed, it was not an aggrieved person as regards taxation of individual residents of the colonywhether they were members of the Society or not. It was admittedthat the land in question was acquired for the colony by the Stategovernment, and that it fell within the development area notifiedunder section 12 (1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It wasalso admitted that the Delhi Development Authority approved thelay-out plan on terms and conditions which formed the subject-matterof an agreement, dated 22-9-1964. It was stated that the said Development Authority exercised powers under the Delhi Developmentact. It wasalso admitted that the Delhi Development Authority approved thelay-out plan on terms and conditions which formed the subject-matterof an agreement, dated 22-9-1964. It was stated that the said Development Authority exercised powers under the Delhi Developmentact. 1957 read with Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Regulations; that the said Regulations [regulation 5 (3) (ii)] provided forthe execution of an agreement with the Development Authority, suchas was executed between the petitioners Society and the Developmentauthority, undertaking to carry out internal development of the landwhich includes (a) levelling, (b) roads, (c) storm water drains, (d) street lighting, (e) water supply, (f) provision of open spacesfor parks, play grounds and the like, (g) sewerage and (h) earmarking and leaving out open sites for schools, dispensaries, communitycentres, and other such public utility services, in accordance with thestandards laid down by the Development Authority and to its satisfaction; that Regulation 5 (3) (iv) provided that the Coloniser shouldtransfer to the Development Authority free of cost the total land inthe colony under roads, public parks and other public utility services;that Regulation 5 (3) (v) provided that the Coloniser shall be responsible for the maintenance of services including sanitation of thecolony until such time as the Development Authority or the Localbody (i. e. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi) takes over such services and that normally the period for which the Coloniser shall beresponsible for the maintenance of the services may not extend beyond12 months after the issue of the completion certificate by the Delhidevelopment Authority; that Relgulation 5 (3) (vi) empowered thedevelopment Authority to carry out development in the colony andrecover charges spent on such development in case the Coloniserfailed to carry out the development in accordance with the standardslaid down by the Development Authority; and that apart from thesaid Regulations there was no statutory obligation on the Developmentauthority or on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take over theservices in a colony in a development area whose lay-out plan wasapproved by the Development Authority. ( 10 ) IT was also stated in the reply that the roads and service laneswere not provided by the Society in strict accordance with the requirements specified by the Development Authority, that the development was not complete, and that was why anoccasion for calculation of deficiencies and demand for payment of the cost of deficienciesfrom the Society had arisen. ( 10 ) IT was also stated in the reply that the roads and service laneswere not provided by the Society in strict accordance with the requirements specified by the Development Authority, that the development was not complete, and that was why anoccasion for calculation of deficiencies and demand for payment of the cost of deficienciesfrom the Society had arisen. It was admitted that the letter (Annexure B), dated 12-2-1965, was received in the office of the Town Planner,that the letter (Annexure C), dated 5-3-l965, was written by thetown Planner to the Administrative officer of the Developmentauthority, and that the office order (Annexure D) was issued by thedeputy Commissioner. It was also admitted that the Corporationreceivedapplications from individual owners of plots in the colony forpermission to erect buildings on their plot and they were consideredand permission was granted according to the building by-laws, but itwas not admitted that most of the plots in the colony had been fullyconstructed or that more than 500 families were residing in the colony. It was stated that the Corporation started levying property tax bothon constructed houses and vacant plots in the colony from 1-4-1962,but that the amount of Rs. 90,000. 00 mentioned in the writ petition inrespect of penalty for deviations, land fee, road cutting charges andrecoveries for storing building materials on roads and pavements, hasnothing to do with property taxes and might have been chargedunder the building by-laws for actual service rendered to the individual owners of the plots and houses. 90,000. 00 mentioned in the writ petition inrespect of penalty for deviations, land fee, road cutting charges andrecoveries for storing building materials on roads and pavements, hasnothing to do with property taxes and might have been chargedunder the building by-laws for actual service rendered to the individual owners of the plots and houses. It was further stated in the reply that the Corporation was takingsteps by the date of the writ petition for recovering property taxes forthe year 1970-71, but that the power of the Corporation to levy andrecover property taxes from owners or occupiers of lands and houses inthe colony has nothing to do with or is, in any way, dependent upon thecorporation taking over the services in the colony, that the obligationsunder clauses (a), (b), and (c) of section 42 of the Corporation Actdo not extend to colonies in development areas where the responsibility for the maintenance of services rests on the Coloniser, that underthe Regulations it is the Coloniser who remains responsible for themaintenance of such services as are REFERRED TO to in clauses (a), (b),and (c) of section 42 of the Corporation Act till the development iscompleted fully and the Corporation exercises its choice to take overthe maintenance of such services, and that since the responsibility formaintaiaing the said services still remains with the Society, section42 of the Corporation Act cannot be invoked. . It was stated that thecircular letter, dated 7-1-1967, was issued under section 115 (i) (b)of the Corporation Act, that in the absence of a pubuic notice underthat provision no water tax is leviable from the owners of lands andbuildings whose houses are not connected by means of pipes withmunicipal water Works, that where there was such a public notice. water tax becomes leviable even on such owners who do not get anysupply from Municipal Water Works to their buildings and that. however, in the case of the C. C. Colony the water tax included in theproperty taxes was being levied and recovered for the time being onthe basis of meter reading only from those owners who received asupply of water from Municipal Water Works and from no others. however, in the case of the C. C. Colony the water tax included in theproperty taxes was being levied and recovered for the time being onthe basis of meter reading only from those owners who received asupply of water from Municipal Water Works and from no others. As regards sewerage facilities and the levy of scavenging tax, a copyof the notification issued under section 115 (2) (b) of the Corporationact has been filed as Annexure R-l, and it was stated in the replythat the levy of the said scavenging tax was quite valid in view of thesaid notification. It was denied that the development and improvementin the colony had been done to the satisfaction of the Municipalcorporation Authorities, and it was reiterated that under the agreement with the Development Authority as well as under the Regulations it was the Society s obligation not only to complete the development fully as required but also to continue to maintain the servicesin the colony, that neither the Development Authority nor the Corporation is bound to take over the services as a matter of statutoryobligation and the Corporation may choose to take over the saidservices if the Society is willing and pays for the deficiencies in thedevelopment, and to carry out the development itself on behalf ofthe Society. A letter, dated 16-10-1965, written by the Delhi Development Authority to the Town Planner has been filed as Annexure-R-2 wherein it was stated that as per the agreement made with thesociety, the services were taken over from the Society as a preliminary to their transfer to the Corporation, and that the Society hadalso agreed that they would actually maintain the services until thetransfer to the Corporation is effected, and that any defects or shortcomings which the Corporation might point out in the services wouldbe rectified by the Society at its own cost. It was lastly stated thatthe petitioners were not entitled to any of the prayers made in thewrit petition. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to the said reply filedby the respondents. It may be stated that this writ petition was heard along with Civilwrit No. 1185/69, Refugees Co-operative Housing Society Limitedand others v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another whichwas in respect of Punjabi Bagh colony. We pronounced our judgmentin the said civil writ No. 1185/69 on 14-5-1971. It may be stated that this writ petition was heard along with Civilwrit No. 1185/69, Refugees Co-operative Housing Society Limitedand others v. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another whichwas in respect of Punjabi Bagh colony. We pronounced our judgmentin the said civil writ No. 1185/69 on 14-5-1971. Similar prayers asthose in the present writ petition were made in the said civil writ. The first prayer was that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi be directed to take over seven specified services in respect of Punjabi Baghcolony and perform the obligatory functions mentioned in section 42of the Corporation Act. The second prayer was that the Corporationbe directed to forbear from claiming or recovering property taxes685hcd/71 ( 11 ) FROM the residents and owners of properties in the Punjabi Baghcolony until the aforcsaid services were taken over and civic amenities and conveniences were furnished to the residents and owners. Asregards the first prayer, we held that the Corporation was bound totake over the services firstly, on the ground that the services werelaid by the petitioner society to the satisfaction of the Commissioneras stipulated in. the resolutions of the Standing Committee of the Corporation by which the lay-out plan. submitted by the petitioner-societywas approved and sanctioned; and secondly, on the ground that theprovisions in section 42 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act arcmandatory. We however, pointed out that the obligations or dutiescast upon the Corporation under the various clauses of the sectionarise only if the requirements in the relevant clause or clauses aresatisfied in a given case, and considered the facts in that case on thatbasis. Out of the seven services, four services were connected with"public streets" according to the relevant clauses of section 42, whilethe other three services were not so connected. On an interpretationof the provisions in sections 315 and 316 of the Corporation Act andon the facts of that case, we held that the Commissioner was bound todeclare the streets in Punjabi Bagh colony as "public streets" withinthe meaning of the Corporation Act, and that after making such declaration he should take over the said four services and maintain them. On an interpretationof the provisions in sections 315 and 316 of the Corporation Act andon the facts of that case, we held that the Commissioner was bound todeclare the streets in Punjabi Bagh colony as "public streets" withinthe meaning of the Corporation Act, and that after making such declaration he should take over the said four services and maintain them. As regards the other three services, they were not connected with"public streets" and there was no particularrequirement in therelevant clauses of sertion 42, and, therefore, on our finding that theservices were laid by the petitioner-society to the stisfection of thecommissioner, we held that the Commissioner should take over thesaid three services also. As regards the second contention we heldthat levy and collection of property taxes by the Corporation werenot dependent upon the taking over of the services or the furnishingof civic amenties mentioned in the various clauses of section 42. In the result, we granted only the first prayer and not the secondin the present case also, the first question for consideration isas to whether the petitioner-society laid the services to the satisfactionof the Commissinoner, Delhi Municipal Corporation. As stated earlier,the colony in question is situate within a "development area" declaredas such under section 12 (1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957the lay-out plan for the colony was submitted to the Developmentauthority, and the latter approved the said plan on 27-7-1963. According to the petitioners, the Society developed the land and laidthe services in accordance with the lay-out plan. In the letter (Annexure B ). dated 12-2-1965, the Administative Officer of thedelhi Development Authority while requesting the Corporation toscrutinize and dispose of individual building plans submitted by theholders of plots in the colony, requested the Corporation "to makenecessary arrangents for the taking over of the services from the Delhidevelopment Authority for maintenance. " It is implicit in the saidletter that the services were laid and the Corporation was only toarrange for the taking over the services from the Delhi Development Authority for maintenance. In the reply (Annexure C), dated5-3-1965, given by the Town Planner of the Corporation, it wasstated that necessary action, as desired was being taken by the Corporation which also shows that the completion of the development ofthe land which includes the laying of the services was assumed. Themutter was made clear in the Office Order (Annexure D ). dated25-5-1965. In the reply (Annexure C), dated5-3-1965, given by the Town Planner of the Corporation, it wasstated that necessary action, as desired was being taken by the Corporation which also shows that the completion of the development ofthe land which includes the laying of the services was assumed. Themutter was made clear in the Office Order (Annexure D ). dated25-5-1965. in which it was clearly stated by the Deputy Commissioner (E) that the development work in the colony was reported to havebeen completed, and that building activity may therefore be allowed. There was a note at the bottom of the letter that the Socisty shouldundertake that "in ease as and when the colony is to be taken overthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the entire development workineluding roads and lanes in particular will be brought to the properstandards by removing of deficiencies caused during the period building, activity is gaining on in the colony. " This note also proceededon the assumption that the development of the colony was completed,and only made it clear that the Society should undertake to bring thedevelopment work including roads and lanes to the proper standardsby removing any deficiencies which might be caused during the periodof building activity in the colony. Again, in the letter (Annexure R-2), dated 16-10-1965, written by the Development Authority tothe Town Planner, it was clearly stated that as per the agreement madewith the Society the services were taken over from the Society by thedevelopment Authority as preliminary to their transfer to the Corporation. The completion of the development of the colony was againreiterated by the Secretary of the Society in his letter (Annexure E ). dated 7-7-1969 to the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation. Delhi. He stated clearly that the Society fully developed the landproviding, metalled roads, lanes, sewer lines, water lines and streetlights etc. etc. and also left land for parks, school, community hall etc. according to the lay out plan approved by the Delhi Developmentauthority, and that the Society, after the said development, allottedplots to its bona fide members. It is thus clear that the land in the colony was developed and thevarious services were laid by the Society, and the Delhi Developmentauthority was not only quite satisfied with the same, but also tookover the services. But, the question is as to whether the services werelaid to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is thus clear that the land in the colony was developed and thevarious services were laid by the Society, and the Delhi Developmentauthority was not only quite satisfied with the same, but also tookover the services. But, the question is as to whether the services werelaid to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation. As regards this, the only documents placed on recordare the letter (Annexure C), dated 5-3-1965, written by the Townplanner of the Municipal Corporation and the Office Order (Annexure (D) dated 25-5-1965, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (E ). Inthe former, the Town Planner did not express any doubt about thecompletion of the development or the laying of the services, but on theother hand stated that the action suggested by the Development Authority viz. the making of necessary arrangements for the taking over ofthe services from the Delhi Development Authority for maintenance,was being taken as desired by the Development Authority. More explicit was the statement of the Deputy Commissioner (E) in his officeorder mentioned above. He accepted the statement of the Developmentauthority that the development work in the colony was completed. and directed his subordinate officers to allow building activity in thecolony. These two documents, in our opnion, show that the Deputycommissioner and the Town Planner of the Corporation acceptedthat the land in the colony was developed and the services were laidin accordance with the lay-out plan as reported by the Developmentauthority. This view is also supported by the fact that for a period of4 years i. e. between 1965 and 1969, the Corporation is not shown tohave found any deficiencies in the development or the laying of theservices. Nothing has been placed on the record to show that between 1965 and 1969 the Corporation had found any deficiencies in thedevelopment or the laying of the services. The only document placedon record is Annexure F, dated 13-10-1969, in which the Townplanner mentioned for the first time the existence of deficiencies ofan estimated cost of Rs. 1,38-951/. That this estimate was not acorrect one is apparent from the fact that the Chief Engineer (W) ofthe Corporation wrote a letter (Annexure G ). The only document placedon record is Annexure F, dated 13-10-1969, in which the Townplanner mentioned for the first time the existence of deficiencies ofan estimated cost of Rs. 1,38-951/. That this estimate was not acorrect one is apparent from the fact that the Chief Engineer (W) ofthe Corporation wrote a letter (Annexure G ). dated 30-9-1970, stating that "the proportionate charges for the outfall storm waterdrain are not to be recovered from the Society," and the fact that thetown Planner of the Corporation wrote a letter (Annexure H), dated26-9-1970, to the petitioner Society stating that "the cost of fencingand grassing of open spaces would be Rs. 20,500. 00 and notrs. 48,156. 00. " Even if it was a fact that the Corporation found somedeficiencies in October, 1969, it was possible that the said deficiencies might have been due to the passage of time. It was stated in paragraph 27 of the writ petition that the Society approached the Corporation a number of times for the taking over of the services in thecolony, that had the Corporation taken over the services in 1965 itself when the initial request was made, the condition of the road. parks and the service lanes would not have been as bad as they hadbecome with the passage of time. that the Corporation should, therefore. take the responsibility for the alleged deficienciesfound to existin 1969, and that if the Corporation continues to delay the takingover of the services for some more years, the condition of the roadsand various services was bound to deteriorate further. In answer tothe same, it was stated in the counter-affidavit that the Society didnot make any request to the Corporation, and that the Society did not have any right to make any such request either in 1965 or eventhereafter. It was explained in the counter-affidavit that under theagreement with the Development Authority as well as under the Regulations it was the Society s obligation not only to complete the development fully as required, but also to continue to maintain the services in the colony till the Development Authority or the Corporationchose to take over the services. As already stated, a copy of the agreement said to have been executed by the Society on 22-9-1964 hasnot been filed by the petitioners or the respondents. As already stated, a copy of the agreement said to have been executed by the Society on 22-9-1964 hasnot been filed by the petitioners or the respondents. However, itis clear from Regulation 5 (3) (v) that the Coloniser has to be responsible for the maintenance of services including sanitation of thecolony until such time as the Development Authority or the localbody i. e. the Corporation takes over such services. But it is statedin the said Regulation 5 (3) (v) that "normally the period for which the Coloniser shall be responsible for the maintenance of the servicesmay not exceed twelve months after the issue of the completioncertificate by the (Development) Authority",. The Developmentauthority did state that the development was completed, took over theservices from the Society, and requested the Corporation in 1965 tomake arrangements for taking over the services from the Developmentauthority. Yet, the Corporation did not take over. If the Corporation had ta,ken over the services within a reasonable time after therequest of the Development Authority, there might not have been anydeficiencies such as were stated to have been found in 1969. In thecircumstances. it is not open to the Corporation to rely upon the aforesaid Regulation and plead that the Society was responsible for themaintenance of the services until they are taken over by the Corporation. ( 12 ) THERE is, however, another circumstance viz, that the Deputycommissioner (E ). while allowing, building activity in the colonystated in his Office Order (Annexure D), dated 25-5-1965, that thesociety should undertake that as and when the colony is to be taken by the Corporation, the entire development work including roadsand lanes in particular will be borught to the proper standards by removing deficiencies caused during the period of the building activity inthe colony. The building activity which was allowed in May, 1965. musthave gone on for some years. The petitioners have not stated in thewrit petition when exactly the building activity as completed. It isquite possible that the deficiencies found in 1969 might have been mostly due to the building activity, and not entirely due to merepassage of time. The building activity which was allowed in May, 1965. musthave gone on for some years. The petitioners have not stated in thewrit petition when exactly the building activity as completed. It isquite possible that the deficiencies found in 1969 might have been mostly due to the building activity, and not entirely due to merepassage of time. In view of the undertaking subject to which thebuilding activity was permitted by the Deputy Commissioner, we areof the opinion that the petitioner Society has to cither remove thesaid deficiencies and bring the entire development work including:roads and lanes to the proper standards, or get the cost of the deficiencies estimated by the Corporation and pay the cost so as to enable the Corporation to remove the said deficiencies and take over theservices. The stand taken by the Corporation is that even if the petitionersociety lays the services in accordance with the lay-out plan orremoves the deficiencies or pays the cost thereof, the Corporationis not under any statutory obligation or bound to take over the services, and that it is a matter of choice for the Corporation totake over the services or not. It was stated in paragraph 27 of thecounter-affidavit that the Corporation was not bound to take over theservices under any statutory obligation, and that it is open to thecorporation to choose not to take over, or to take over the servicesif the Society is willing and pays the cost of the deficiencies in thedevelopment. The said stand of the Corporation is untenable. The petitioner-Socicty was under an obligation to develop the landfully and lay the services in accordance with the lay-out plan, becausethe lay-out plan was approved and sanctioned on that condition. On the other hand. the Corporation was under an obligation to takeover and maintain the services by reason of the mandatory provisionin section 42 of the Corporation Act. However, the said statutoryobligation, as held by us in Civil Writ No. 1185 of 1969, arises only if the requirements in the relevant clause or clauses of section 42arc satisfied. If the requirements of the relevant clause or clausesare satisfied, the Corporation is bound to take over the servicesmentioned in those clauses and maintain them by reason of the provision in section 42 being obligatory or mandatory. It is thus nota matter left to the choice of the Corporation. If the requirements of the relevant clause or clausesare satisfied, the Corporation is bound to take over the servicesmentioned in those clauses and maintain them by reason of the provision in section 42 being obligatory or mandatory. It is thus nota matter left to the choice of the Corporation. As regards the obligatory functions mentioned in the various clauses of section 42, some of them are connected with public streetsand some are not so connected. We held in Civil Writ No. 1185of 1969 that in the case of the obligatory functions connected withpublic streets, if the Coloniser/society lays the services to the satisfaction of the Commissioner and a majority of the owners of thestreets and of the lands and buildings fronting or abutting on such streets, require the Commissioner to declare the streets to be publicstreets, the Commissioner is bound to declare them as public streets,and thereupon the streets vest in the corporation by virtue of the provisions in sections 315 and 316 of the Corporation Act. On suchvesting, the Commissioner is also bound to take over the servicesconnected with the public streets in the colony and maintain them. ( 13 ) AS regards the obligatory functions which are not connected with public streets, if the Coloniser/society lays the services to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner is bound to take overthe said services and maintain them as there are no other requirements to be fulfilled by the Coloniser/society, ( 14 ) IN the present case, however, we have held above that the petitioner-Society is bound to remove the deficiencies or pay the cost of the same. As it has not done so, it is not open to it to requirethe Corporation to take over the services in the colony unless anduntil the Society removes the deficiencies or pays the cost of thesame to the Corporation. ( 15 ) WE may here refer to an argument advanced by Shri H. R. Sawhney that the streets in the colony became public streets oncethe Society, as owner of the streets, earmarked them in the lay-out plan and. thus, dedicated the same for public user. He REFERRED TO tothe decisions in Rana Gunpat Singh v. Kangra Valley State Company, 62 P. R. (1898),c) Vibuda Priya Thirtha Swamy v. Esoofsahib, 8 I. C. 175. Surajmal Kharad v. Akshoy Kumar Roychoudhury, 40 I. C. 74, Mannada Mudali v. Nallayya Gounden,i. L. R. 32 Mad. thus, dedicated the same for public user. He REFERRED TO tothe decisions in Rana Gunpat Singh v. Kangra Valley State Company, 62 P. R. (1898),c) Vibuda Priya Thirtha Swamy v. Esoofsahib, 8 I. C. 175. Surajmal Kharad v. Akshoy Kumar Roychoudhury, 40 I. C. 74, Mannada Mudali v. Nallayya Gounden,i. L. R. 32 Mad. 527, and Rai Bajrang Bahadar Singh v. Babubadri Nath Bhargava, AIR 1923 Oudh 26. The said decisions deal with the question as to when a street can be said to have beendedicated to the public, and they lay down that on such dedicationit becomes public street. But. the said proposition is not of anyassistancc in the present case. us the question in the present caseis as to whether the streets in the colony have become publicstreets within the meaning of the Corporation Act. The Term "public. street" has been defined in. section 2 (44) of the Corporation Act as meaning "any street which vests in the Corporation as a publicstreet or the soil below the surface of which vests in the Corporationor which under the provisions of this Act becomes, or is declaredto be, a. public street". Thus, we are concerned in the present casewith the question as to whether the streets in the C. C. Colony havebecome public streets as defined in S. 2 (44 ). Mere dedication tothe public does not make the streets in the colony public streets"for the purposes of the Corporation Act. Thus, we are concerned in the present casewith the question as to whether the streets in the C. C. Colony havebecome public streets as defined in S. 2 (44 ). Mere dedication tothe public does not make the streets in the colony public streets"for the purposes of the Corporation Act. We may also refer to a contention urged by the learned Attorneygeneal that the lay-out plan for the C. C. Colony was approved bythe Development Authority; that under the provisions of the Delhidevelopment Act, 1957, the development of a land in a development area may be undertaken or carried out by the Development Authority or by the owner of the land with the permission of thedevelopment Authority or the Corporation, as the case may be; thatsection 36 of the said Act empowers the Development Authority to require the Corporation to assume responsibility for the maintenanceof the amenities which have been provided in the area by the Development Authority and for the provision of amenities which havenot been provided by the Development Authority but which in itsopinion should be provided in the area; that the said section appliesonly where an area has been developed by the Development Authority, and the section does not, therefore, apply to the C. C. Colonywhich has been developed by the Society with the permission of thedevelopment Authority and not by the Development Authorityitself: and that there is thus no statutory obligation on the Corporation to take over the services in the C. C. Colony, and it is entirelyleft to the choice of the Corporation to take over the services in thecolony or not. It is not necessary to decide in this case the scopcand applicability of section 36. Even assuming without deciding that section 36 docs not apply in the instant case of the C. C. Colony. the position is that, apart from the provisions in the Delhi Development Act, the obligation of the Corporation to take over and maintainthe services in the colony arises, as explained above. by virtue ofthe mandatory provision in section 42 of the Corporation Act. . andif the various requirements REFERRED TO to above are fulfilled bythecoloniser/society, the Corporation would be under a statutory obligation to take over the services and maintain them. The Corportationwould also be under an obligation to take over the services by reasonof its own assurance to the Society that it will. . andif the various requirements REFERRED TO to above are fulfilled bythecoloniser/society, the Corporation would be under a statutory obligation to take over the services and maintain them. The Corportationwould also be under an obligation to take over the services by reasonof its own assurance to the Society that it will. take over the servicesof the Society removes the deficiencies or pays the cost of the deficiencies. ( 16 ) IN the view taken by us that the petitioner-Society is bound to remove the deficiencies or pay the cost of the same to the Corporation, and since the Society has not done so, it is not entitled torequire the Corporation to take over the services unless and untilit removes the deficiencies by itself or pays the cost of the sameto the Corporation. ( 17 ) AS regards the second prayer in the writ petition that the Corporation he restrained from levying and collecting property taxes unless and until the services are taken over by the Corporation. we haveheld in Civil Writ No. 1185 of 1969 that the levy and colicection ofproperty taxes by the Corporation under the Corporation Act arenot dependant upon the taking over of the services or the furnishingof civil amenities mentioned in the various clauses of section 42 ofthe said Act. The second prayer also cannot, therefore, be granted. ( 18 ) FOR the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.