Judgment Bharucha, J. The petitioner owns land admeasuring 16,000 square metres situated at Fatorda within the Margao Municipal area. She wished to develop an area of about 6,854 square metres out of that land and submitted plans under Section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, to the Planning and Development Authority for sanction. On 31st July, 1982 the Planning Authority informed the petitioner that it had no objection to such development subject, inter alia, to the condition with which we are here concerned, viz., that "necessary licence" be obtained from the Municipality. On 5th August, 1982 the petitioner wrote to the Municipality asking for issue of such licence. She enclosed with her letter a copy of the final no- objection certificate issued by the Planning Authority. On 10th September, 1982 the Municipality wrote to the petitioner requesting her".... to produce deed of transfer of the area under road, open space and road-widening in favour of this Council, duly registered in the Land Registration Office, in order to consider your request for issuing the final approval", for the sub-division. Further correspondence ensued and on 13th January, 1983 the Municipality reiterated its demand for such transfer and informed the petitioner that its "final approval for the sub-division cannot be given until the above condition is complied with, as required under Article 36, clause (xii) of building bye laws" of the Municipality. 2. The petitioner had also written to the Planning Authority for a no-objection certificate under Section 49(6) of the Planning Act. Under this sub-section registering officers are enjoined not to register documents of transfer unless the transferee produces a certificate of no-objection from the Planning Authority. On 10th January, 1983 the Planning Authority wrote to the petitioner and asked her "to produce a final NOC issued by the Margao Municipal Council and also produce a certificate stating that the open space and roads are gifted to the Margao Municipal Council." The letter stated that once these were produced a no-objection certificate for registration would be issued. 3. This petition is filed impugning, first, the necessity of obtaining a licence from the Municipality and also the condition imposed by the Municipality for such licence, viz., that the area under road, open space and road-widening be first transferred to the Municipality. 4. 3. This petition is filed impugning, first, the necessity of obtaining a licence from the Municipality and also the condition imposed by the Municipality for such licence, viz., that the area under road, open space and road-widening be first transferred to the Municipality. 4. Our attention has been drawn to the Goa, Daman and Diu Municipalities Act, 1968, and it has been shown - which is not disputed - that there are no provisions therein relating to sub-division and development of land. There are, undoubtedly, in the Municipalities Act provisions relating to streets and open spaces and buildings and it appears that with reference thereto the Margao Municipal Council Building Bye-laws and Regulations, 1979, were framed. Bye-law 36 clause (xii) thereof reads thus :- "All such sub-divisions of land when submitted, if found to be as per the provisions of the zoning plan, will be proved provisionally subject to the conditions specified in the approval. When the necessary developments has taken place, as specified earlier (Bye-law 36(ix), (x) and (xi) as well as additional provisions that may be stipulated as the circumstances may warrant, the plans shall have a final approval and after which transactions of individual plots shall be effected, and the areas shown under access roads as well as public recreational cum public open space shall be transferred to the Council for which no compensation shall be paid." 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Planning Act prevailed where the development and sub-division of land was concerned. This was borne out by the provisions of Section 134 of the Planning Act which reads thus :- "effect of other laws.-(1) Save as provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. This was borne out by the provisions of Section 134 of the Planning Act which reads thus :- "effect of other laws.-(1) Save as provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law – (a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be not validly undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that the permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained; (b) when permission for the development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be validly undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development had been obtained." 6. There can be no doubt that the Planning Act was enacted specifically to deal with the development and sub-division of land and that its provisions must prevail in that regard. There is no provision in the Planning Act which requires the permission of the Municipality to be obtained before the Planning Authority issues a no-objection certificate to a proposed development and sub-division or a certificate under Section 49(6) of the Planning Act. The Planning Authority, therefore, was not entitled to impose. as a pre-condition to the issue of its final no-objection certificate to the development and sub-division of the petitioner's land, the requirement of the production of a "necessary licence" from the Municipality; nor was the Planning Authority entitled to require the petitioner to produce a final no-objection certificate issued by the Municipality or a certificate stating that the open space and roads in the proposed development had been transferred to the Municipality before the no-objection certificate for registration under Section 49(6) of the Planning Act was issued by it. 7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipality it has been stated that the condition regarding transfer of roads and open spaces to the Municipality was put in order that the roads and open spaces were properly looked after and maintained by the Municipality. 7. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Municipality it has been stated that the condition regarding transfer of roads and open spaces to the Municipality was put in order that the roads and open spaces were properly looked after and maintained by the Municipality. It seems to us that, even if there had been powers vested in the Municipality to exercise some measure of control over the development and subdivision of land, no condition requiring the intending developer to transfer to it any part of the land could be imposed, being extraneous to the purpose. 8. In the result, the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The Planning Authority shall issue the no-objection certificate for the development and sub-division of the petitioner's land without insisting upon any licence in that behalf being obtained from the Municipality. The Planning Authority shall also issue to the petitioner a no-objection certificate under Section 49(6) of the Planning Act without insisting upon the production of a no-objection certificate from the Municipality or a certificate stating that the open spaces and roads had been transferred by the petitioner to the Municipality. 9. As we are informed that there was some real difficulty about reconciling the provisions of the Planning Act and the Municipalities Act, we make no order as to costs. Rule accordingly.