S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are residents of village Bhesan in Choryasi taluka of Surat district have brought in challenge the development plan pertaining to village Bhesan sanctioned by the State of Gujarat under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 (the Act for short) Before we refer to the main contentions canvassed in this petition it will be necessity to have a look at a few introductory facts. Introductory facts: The petitioners are agriculturists and are residing at village Bhesan in Choryasi taluka of Surat district. It is their case that their lands are being irrigated by canal water supplied to them by the State authorities. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Gujarat respondent No 2 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer while respondent No. 3 is a body corporate known as Surat Urban Development Authority functioning under the provisions of the Act; while respondent No. 4 is the Chief Executive Authority of respondents No. 2. Respondent No. 5 is Surat Municipal Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 The case of the petitioners is that the development plan for the area was notified by the competent authority under the provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act years back. That after inviting objections from the members of the publics the said development plan was submitted to the first respondent-State of Gujarat by the competent authority as per the provisions of Sec. 16 of the Act. The competent authority sent the said plan for sanction of the State Government on 6-8-1981. The first respondent sanctioned the said plan on 31-1-1986. In the meantime the second respondent issued notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking to acquire the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of drainage disposal scheme for respondent No. 5 Corporation. The petitioners case is that even under the development plan which is sanctioned the said lands are reserved for the very same purpose. Apprehending danger to the possession of their lands on account-of the aforesaid developments the petitioners have filed that petition It is pertinent to note at this stage that in this petition land acquisition notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are not challenged. Apprehending danger to the possession of their lands on account-of the aforesaid developments the petitioners have filed that petition It is pertinent to note at this stage that in this petition land acquisition notifications under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are not challenged. All that is challenged is sanctioned development plan under the Act. It is now time for us to refer to the main contentions canvassed in this petition by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. ( 2 ) CONTENTIONS of the petitioners: (I) Development plan sanctioned by the State of Gujarat under Sec. 17 of the Act is null and void as it is sanctioned beyond the prescribed period. Under these circumstances it has lapsed and it has no legal efficacy. (II) While finalising the development plan the petitioners were not heard and therefore also the development plan is had. (III) Reservation of the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of Surat Municipal Corporation when these lands are beyond the Municipal Corporation limits is patently had and ultra vires the Act. (IV) Other Kharaba lands are available in the vicinity. There are also villages situated round about and there are available lands even within the municipal limits. Therefore exercise of the powers under Sec. 17 of the Act for reserving these lands for the Corporation is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. (V) As per the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents especially Surat Municipal Corporation it becomes patent that there are also other lands available with the Corporation being already acquired from village Jehangirabad and therefore there is no need for the Surat Municipal Corporation to get additional lands reserved for the purpose of drainage disposal scheme of the Surat Municipal Corporation under the impugned plan. . . . . . . . ( 3 ) WE shall deal with these contentions seriatim. So far as the first contention is concerned the factual background is not disputed. The petitioner lands amongst the lands of others have been reserved under the sanctioned development plan for the purpose of drainage disposal scheme. It is also not in dispute that having followed the procedure of Sec. 9 onwards the competent authority submitted the draft development plan for sanction of the State of Gujarat under Sec. 16 of the Act on 6-8-1981. It is also not in dispute that having followed the procedure of Sec. 9 onwards the competent authority submitted the draft development plan for sanction of the State of Gujarat under Sec. 16 of the Act on 6-8-1981. It is also not in dispute that ultimately the development plan with modification was sanctioned by the State of Gujarat on 31-1-1986. However before that was done the State of Gujarat having been of the opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations were necessary it followed the procedure prescribed by proviso to clause (ii) of Sec. 17 (1) (a) and ultimately the said plan with necessary modifications was sanctioned by the first respondent-State of Gujarat under Sec. 17 (1) (c) of the Act. ( 4 ) IN the background of this factual position the first submission vehemently canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioners has to be appreciated. The learned Advocate for the petitioners placing strong reliance on Sec. 17 (1) (a) submitted that on receipt of the draft development plan under Sec 16 the State Government by a notification can sanction the draft development plan and the regulations so received within the prescribed period either with modification or without modification. That the prescribed period as per Sec. 2 (21) of the Act means period prescribed by rules made under the Act. As per Sec. 118 (2) (xii) the State Government is empowered to provide by rules the period within which the draft development plan and regulations under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 can be sanctioned. In this connection our attention was invited to the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules 1979 framed by the State of Gujarat in exercise of this power. Rule 7 of the said Rules was pressed in service. It reads as under:"7 (1) The State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations submitted to it under Sec. 16 within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt by the State Government if no modification is proposed. Rule 7 of the said Rules was pressed in service. It reads as under:"7 (1) The State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations submitted to it under Sec. 16 within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt by the State Government if no modification is proposed. (2) If any modification in the draft development plan or the regulations submitted to the State Government under Sec. 16 are considered necessary by the State Government then the State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations with modifications within a period of twenty four months from the date of receipt by the State Government. "reading Sec. 17 (1) (a) (i) with Rule 7 it was vehemently contended that even if the development plan is to be sanctioned with modification the maximum period within which such sanction could have been accorded was period of 24 months from the date of receipt of the plan by the State Government and as the plan was received by the State of Gujarat on 6-8-1981 the State Government could have sanctioned the said plan with modification latest by 5-8-1983 and as in the present case it has not done so and sanction was accorded beyond that period the plan became ultra vires illegal and in any case must be treated to have lapsed. Mr. Desai for the respondent-Corporation on the other hand vehemently contended that the aforesaid period which has been prescribed by Rules is the period for sanctioning the draft development plan and regulations which might have been submitted by the competent authority under Sec. 16 of the Act but if the State of Gujarat itself thinks it necessary to introduce substantial modification in the draft development plan and the regulations so submitted it can suo motu invite objections any notifying proposed substantial modifications by follow in the procedure under the proviso to clause (ii) of Sec. 17 (1) (a ). for such an exercise period of limitation prescribed as per Rule 7 would not apply and consequently there would survive no further question as to whether the prescribed period is directory or mandatory. In our view there is considerable force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Desai. In order to reserve this controversy between the parties it is necessary to have a close look at the relevant provisions of the Act. In our view there is considerable force in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Desai. In order to reserve this controversy between the parties it is necessary to have a close look at the relevant provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) AS per Sec. 3 of the Act the State is enjoined for the purpose of securing planned development of ar as within toe State to declare by a notification and in such other manner as may be prescribed any area in the State to be a development area. For the development area as per Sec. 5 (1) the State Government by a notification can constitute an authority for such area to be called the area development authority of that development area for the purpose of carrying out the functions assigned to an area development authority under the Act. The area development authority is en joined under Sec. 9 (1) to prepare and sub nit to the State Government a draft development plan for the whole or any part of the development area in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Such exercise has to be undertaken not later than three years after the declaration of such area as a development area or within such time as the State Government may from time to time extend. As per Sec. 9 if a draft development plan is not prepared and submitted to the State Government by any area development authority within the period specified in sub-sec (1) or within the period extended under that sub-section an officer appointed by the State Government in this behalf may prepare and submit to the State Government in the prescribed manner a draft development plan and recover the cost thereof from such area development authority out of its funds. As per Sec. 10 a copy of the draft development plan prepared under Sec. 9 for any area has to be kept open for inspection of the public. Contents of the draft development plan are laid down by Sec. 12. As per Sec. 10 a copy of the draft development plan prepared under Sec. 9 for any area has to be kept open for inspection of the public. Contents of the draft development plan are laid down by Sec. 12. As per Sec. 13 the area development authority or the authorised officer as soon as may be after a draft development plan is prepared and submitted to the State Government under Sec. 9 has to publish it in the official gazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed inviting suggestions or objections to the draft development plan from members of the public within 2 months of such publication. As per Sec. 14 if any person communicates in writing any suggestions or objections relating to the draft development plan the same have to be considered by the competent authority and the authority may modify such plan as it or he thinks fit in the light of these suggestions or objections. As per Sec. 15 if the modifications proposed are of substantial nature the competent authority has to publish the modifications in the official gazette alongwith notice in prescribed manner inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications within a period of two months from the date of publication of such notice and there upon the provisions of Sec. 14 shall apply in relation to such suggestions or objections. Then follows Sec. 16 which lays down that after a draft development plan is published as aforesaid and the objections or suggestions thereto. if any are received the area development authority or as the case may be the authorised officer shall within a period of six months from the date of publication of the draft development plan under Sec. 13 submit to the State Government for its sanction the draft development plan and the regulations with the modifications if any made there to under Sec. 14 or Sec. 15. As per proviso to Sec. 16 the State Government may on an application by the area development authority or the authorised officer by order in writing extend from time to time the said period by such further period or periods as may be specified in the order so however that the period or periods so extended shall not in any case exceed twelve months in the aggregate. As per sub-sec. As per sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 16 the particulars published under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 and the suggestions or objections received under Sec. 14 or Sec. 15 shall also be suggested to the State Government along with the draft development plan. Then follows Sec. 17 which deals with power of the State Government to sanction draft development plan. As this section is the main section around which the controversy between the parties rotates it would be apposite to extract at this stage Sec. 17 in its entirety:"17 (1) (a ). On receipt of the draft development plan under Sec. 16 the State Government may by notification : (I)SANCTION the draft development plan and the regulations so received within the prescribed period for the whole of the area covered by the plan or separately for any part thereof either without modifications or subject to such modifications. as it may consider proper; or (II) return the draft development plan and the regulations to the area development authority or as the case may be to the authorised officer for modifying the plan and the regulations in such manner as it may direct;provided that where the State Government is of opinion that substantial modifications in the draft development plan and regulations are necessary the State government may instead of returning them to the area development authority or as the case may be the authorised officer under this sub-clause publish the modifications so considered necessary in the official gazette alongwith B notice in the prescribed manner inviting suggestions or objections from any person with respect to the proposed modifications within a period of two months from the date of publication of such notice; or (III) refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations and direct the area development authority or the authorised officer to prepare a fresh development plan under the provisions of this Act. (B) Where a development plan and regulations are returned to an area development authority or as the case may be the authorised officer under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) the area development authority or as the case may be the authorized officer shall carry out the modifications therein as directed by the State Government and then submit them as so modified to the State Government for sanction; and the State Government shall thereupon sanction them after satisfying itself that the modifications suggested have been duly carried cut therein. (C) Where the State Government has published the modifications considered necessary in a draft development plan as required under the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) the State Government shall before according sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations take into consideration the suggestions or objections that may have been received thereto and thereafter accord sanction to the draft development plan and the regulations in such modified firm as it may consider fit. (D)THE sanction accorded under clause (b) or clause (c) shall be notified by the State Government in the official sorriest and the draft development plan together with the regulations so sanctioned shall be called the final development plan. (E)THE final development plan shall come into force on such date as the State Government may specify in the notification issued under clause (d):provided that the date so specified shall not be earlier than one month from the date of publication of such notification. (2) Where the draft development plan submitted by an area development authority or as the case may be the authorised officer contains any proposals for the reservation of any land for a purpose specified in clause (b) or clause (n) of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12 and such land does not vest in the area development authority. the State Government shall not include the said reservation in the development plan unless it is satisfied that such authority would as put the land whether by agreement or compulsory acquisition within ten years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force. (3) A final development plan which has come into force shall subject to the provisions of this Act be binding on the area development authority concerned and on all other authorities situated in the area of the development plan. (3) A final development plan which has come into force shall subject to the provisions of this Act be binding on the area development authority concerned and on all other authorities situated in the area of the development plan. (4) After the final development plan comes into force the area development authority concerned may execute any work for developing redeveloping or improving any area within the area covered by the plan in accordance with the proposals contained it the development plan. " ( 6 ) WE may in this connection refer to Sec. 20 which lays down that the area development authority or any other authority for whose purpose land is designated in the final development plan for any purpose specified in clause (b) clause (d) clause (k) or clause (n) of sub-sec. (2 of Sec. 12 may acquire the land either by agreement or under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 20 lays down that if the land referred to in sub-sec. (1) is not acquired by agreement within a period of ten 5tears from the date of the coming into force of the final development plan or if proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1891 are not communed within such period the owner or any person interested in the land may serve a notice on the authority concerned requiring it to acquire the land and if within six months from the date of service of such notice the land is not acquired or no steps are commenced for its acquisition the designation of the land as aforesaid shall be deemed to have lapsed. Section 21 deals with revision of development plan. It provides that at least once in ten years from the date on which a final development plan comes into force the area development authority shall revise the development plan after carrying out if necessary a fresh survey and the provisions of Secs. 9 to 20 shall so far as may be apply to such revision. ( 7 ) A conjoint reading of provisions of Secs. 13 to 17 clearly shows that even at the level of the area development authority modifications in the proposed development plan can be suggested by the members of the public. If these modifications proposed are not of substantial nature provisions of Sec. 14 can be straightway followed by the area development authority such viz. 13 to 17 clearly shows that even at the level of the area development authority modifications in the proposed development plan can be suggested by the members of the public. If these modifications proposed are not of substantial nature provisions of Sec. 14 can be straightway followed by the area development authority such viz. non-substantial proposed modifications can be straightway considered by the authority and the authority itself can modify the plan accordingly if it accepts the said proposals. But on the other hand if the proposed modifications are substantial in nature gamut of Sec. 15 has to be followed by the authority and after following it the authority may accept modifications or may not. But in either case the original draft development plan and regulations with suggestions and objections received under Secs. 14 and 15 are also required to be forwarded to the State Government as per Sec. 16 (1) read with Sec. 16 (2) of the Act. It is such draft development plan and regulations accompanied by the suggestions and objections that have to be considered by the State of Gujarat for the purpose of granting sanction to the same. It is at that stage that Sec. 17 (1) (a) (i) applies. If the State Government is inclined to sanction the plan so received then the period prescribed for doing so will be 12 months as laid down by Rule 7 (1) of the Rules. If however on the other hand. the State Government finds that objections and suggestion received alongwith the draft development plan from the area development authority require the plan to be modified which modifications otherwise should have been carried out by the concerned authority at its end in the light of suggestions and objections received by it then on the basis of that a available data the State Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 17 (i) (a) (i) may sanction the plan with modifications which the State authority considers proper and for that purpose time permitted is further 12 months viz. within 24 months of the receipt of the draft development plan. within 24 months of the receipt of the draft development plan. This is what has been laid down by Rule 7 (2) of the Rules But in a case in which the State Government is not proposing to accept the modifications as suggested in the objections tendered before the are development authority and which have travelled with the plan to the State Government under Sec. 16 (2) and the State Government it self suo motu wants to introduce modifications in the plan as contemplated by the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of Sec. 17 (1) (a) then in that case the State Government itself has to invite objections from the members of the public likely to be affected by such modifications. Once procedure is followed there is no period prescribed for completing such exercise. It is interesting to note that after such suo motu proposed modifications are published by the State of Gujarat and objections are invited the State Government can sanction the plan with such substantial modifications after considering the objections received to the proposed substantial modifications and for the said exercise no time limit is prescribed by Sec. 17 (1) (c ). Mr. Desai is therefore right when he contends that Rule 7 of the Rules prescribed time limit only for sanctioning draft development plan by the State Government either without any modifications or with such modifications which according to the State Government are required to be made in the proposed draft development plan in the light of the objections which were already received by the area development authority proposing such modifications as per Sec. 14 of the Act and which have travelled with the plan to the State Government under Sec 16 (2 ). But in cases here the State decides to introduce substantial modifications in the proposed development plan suo motu requirement of finishing such exercise within a fixed time limit is not found anywhere in the said section. It is also interesting to note that even Rule 7 itself provides for period within which the draft development plan and the regulations shall be sanctioned under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17. It is also interesting to note that even Rule 7 itself provides for period within which the draft development plan and the regulations shall be sanctioned under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17. It has nothing to do with sanctioning of the plan after substantial modifications proposed by the State of Gujarat itself when such sanction is to be effected under Sec. 17 (1) (c) of the Act for such sanction no period is prescribed and Rule 7 does not cover such contingency. As a result of the aforesaid discussions the following situations emerge. (1) If the State chooses to sanction the draft development plan and regulations received by it under Sec. 16 from the competent authority without any modification the prescribed period during which such exercise has to be done is 12 months from the receipt of the plan and regulations as laid down by Rule 7 (1) of the Rules (2) If the State Government having received such draft development plan and regulations with objections and suggestions as per Sec. 16 (1) read with Sec. 16 (2) considers it proper to grant certain modifications in the draft development plan which were not granted earlier by the area development authority and when such modifications are to be made in the light of the objections and suggestions already received by the area development authority then the said modifications can be made within a further period of 12 months totaling in all 24 months of the receipt of the development plan and regulations as laid down by Rule 7 (2) of the Rules. (3) If the State Government thinks it proper to return the said plan and regulations to the authority for modifying the plan and regulations then it can so return the said draft development plan. Once the plan is returned the authority has to deal with returned plan as laid down by Sec. 17 (2) of the Act and then resubmit the draft to the State Government for sanction. If that happens the State Government can sanction the same after due modification is carried out by the area development authority as per Sec. 17 (1) (b) for which there is no period prescribed. (4) Instead of returning the plan the State may exercise powers under the proviso to sub-sec. If that happens the State Government can sanction the same after due modification is carried out by the area development authority as per Sec. 17 (1) (b) for which there is no period prescribed. (4) Instead of returning the plan the State may exercise powers under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 17 (1) (a) and may then invite objections from the public if modifications are substantial innature. The said provision clearly indicates that there must be such substantial modifications which the State suo motu thinks it proper to carry out in the plan. For such proposed modifications the members of public had earlier no opportunity of objecting and that is the reason why they are to be published by the State Government for the first time. Once that happens the State Government can sanction the development plan with substantial modifications as proposed by it as per Sec. 17 (1) (c) of the Act for which also there is no period of limitation. (5) Lastly the State Government may refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan and regulations and direct the ares development authority or authorised officer to prepare fresh development plan under the provisions of the Act. Out of the aforesaid five situations the question of sanctioning draft development plan and regulations within the prescribed period becomes relevant only in the first two cases. For the rest of the cases there is no period prescribed by the Legislature for sanctioning such plan and regulations with modifications. As the present case falls within the fourth category of cases it is obvious that Rule 7 is totally out of picture and therefore it must be held that for sanctioning this plan after inviting objections from the members of public by the State Government itself. when such modifications are proposed suo motu by the State there is no time limit within which such exercise can be finalised and sanction can be accorded by the State to the plan with or without such substantial modifications suo motu proposed by it. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours on the scheme of relevant provisions of the Act it is not necessary for us to consider the wider question as to whether the draft development plan would lapse if it is not sanctioned within the prescribed time by the State Government. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours on the scheme of relevant provisions of the Act it is not necessary for us to consider the wider question as to whether the draft development plan would lapse if it is not sanctioned within the prescribed time by the State Government. We are also not required to consider whether in absence of any express provision for lapsing of draft development plan under Sec. 17 and especially when there are other provisions of the Act which expressly provide for lapsing as contemplated by Sec. 32 on the one hand and Sec. 42 (3) on the other the development plan can at all lapse as not being sanctioned under Sec. 15 (1) by the State within the prescribed period. We are also not required to consider whether prescription of time limit under Rule 7 (1) and (2) is mandatory in nature or is merely directory in nature especially when 10 years period is provided by Sec. 20 of the Act for acquiring the land reserved for specified purposes under the final development plan by the competent authority However we may refer to a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Chimanlal Estate v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 27 GLR 1323 on which strong reliance was placed by by Mr. Sanjanwala learned Advocate for the petitioners. In that case N. H. Bhatt J. (as he then was) in para 9 of the report took the view that when the State Government took lot of time in sanctioning the draft development plan with modifications which were suo motu published by the State of Gujarat the plan had lapsed. However before the learned single Judge it was not contended on behalf of the authority that on the scheme of the Act there was no time prescribed for sanctioning the modified draft development plan after suo motu inviting objections for substantial modifications as per Sec. 17 (1) (a) (ii) proviso read with Sec. 17 (c) of the Act. As such a contention was never canvassed the learned Judge had no occasion and opportunity to deal with the same. Consequently the ratio of the aforesaid case cannot be of any avail to the petitioners. The limited point urged before him was whether the period of limitation prescribed for sanctioning of the plan as per Rule 7 was directory or mandatory. Consequently the ratio of the aforesaid case cannot be of any avail to the petitioners. The limited point urged before him was whether the period of limitation prescribed for sanctioning of the plan as per Rule 7 was directory or mandatory. The said decision therefore proceeded on the assumption that there was a time limit prescribed for such an exercise. We have already shown earlier that once the State Government suo motu seeks to modify the draft development plan and when modifications are of substantial nature and when objections are invited by the State Government itself there is no period of limitation prescribed by the legislature or by the Rule making authority for completing such exercise. In these circumstances the very assumption which was made before the learned single Judge by the learned Advocate for the respondents who tried to support such exercise was with respect unjustified and therefore the aforesaid decision is of no avail to the petitioners. It must therefore be held that the final conclusion to which N. H. Bhatt J. reached on facts of that case about lapse of the plan is contraindicated by the scheme of Sec. 17 of the Act and has to be held with respect as incorrect. But even otherwise with respect it is difficult prima facie to agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge that the plan would automatically lapse if it is not sanctioned within the prescribed time or that the period prescribed under Rule 7 (1) (2) is of such a mandatory nature that any infraction thereof even by a day or an hour would have such nullifying consequences. However it is not necessary for us to decide this question as on the facts of the present case as we have already shown earlier the case falls within category (3) for which there is no period of limitation at all prescribed under the Act or the Rules and therefore there remains no occasion for considering this wider question. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the first contention is found to be devoid of any substance and has to be rejected. ( 8 ) SO far as second contention is concerned it must be stated that nowhere in the Act it has been prescribed to give any personal hearing to an objector. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the first contention is found to be devoid of any substance and has to be rejected. ( 8 ) SO far as second contention is concerned it must be stated that nowhere in the Act it has been prescribed to give any personal hearing to an objector. At the stage of publication of the draft development plan and even at the stage of publication of substantial modification suo motu proposed by the State Government while being called upon to sanction the development plan members of the public have been given an opportunity to object. Once their objections are received they are required to be considered by the concerned authority but there remains no question of giving any personal hearing to such objectors. This is contraindicated by the scheme of the Act and it also stands to reason. There can be hundreds of such objections. If personal hearing is to be given to all such objectors sanctioning of the plan can never be completed for decades and thus the very prescription of time limit provided by the rule making authority would be rendered nugatory. It-is not in dispute that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to file their written objections to the proposed development plan and their objections were considered by the authority. Consequently the second contention has also to be rejected. ( 9 ) SO far as the third contention is concerned it is required to be stated to be rejected. Under the scheme of the Act the development plan is to be prepared for the development area which is defined by Sec. 2 (ix) as an area declared to be a development area under Sec. 3 or as the case may be an urban development area under Sec. 22. When we turn to Sec. 3 we find that for the purpose of securing planned development of areas within the State the State Government may declare by a notification and in such other manner as may be prescribed any area in the State to be a development area. Consequently it cannot be urged that development area must coincide with limits of the Municipal Corporation as tried to be suggested by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. In fact any area in the State can be declared to be development area. Consequently it cannot be urged that development area must coincide with limits of the Municipal Corporation as tried to be suggested by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. In fact any area in the State can be declared to be development area. Once it is so declared development plan can be prepared for the same as laid down by Sec. 9. It therefore cannot be held that the lands beyond the Municipal Corporation limits cannot be included in the development area and for that matter in the development plan. The third contention also has therefore to be rejected. (REST of the Judgment is not material for the Reports )RULE discharged. .