JUDGMENT Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - Two individual residents of Saharanpur have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have prayed for a writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings for the preparation of a *Master Plan' in pursuance of a notification dated August 26, 1985 published in the 'Nav Bharat Times' (Annexure 7 to the petition). Their contention is that there does not exist any validly approved Master Plan such as is contemplated by the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (the 'Act', for short) for the regulated area comprising the municipal limit of Saharanpur as well as surrounding areas consisting of a large n umber of villages and consequently the respondent Controlling Authority constituted under the said Act should be restrained from giving effect to the so-called Master Plan relied on by it. 2. The parties having exchanged affidavits, we proceed to dispose of the petition finally with their consent at this very stage. 3. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, we will have a brief look at the relevant provisions of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958. According to the statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Act this piece of legislation was enacted to curb a growing tendency of haphazard building activities witnessed in and around developing towns, with the. constructions coming up having no proper means of drainage, water supply, communication and sanitation, etc. creating in their wake innumerable problems of health and security of the people inhabiting such towns. It was with this objective that the Legislature decided to bring an enactment on the lines of the Delhi (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1955 enacted by Parliament. 4. Section 2(d) of the Act defines 'Regulated Area' as an area in respect of which a declaration under sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 is, for the time being, in force. S. 3(1) provides that if, in the opinion of the State Government, any area requires to be regulated under this Act with a view to the prevention of bad laying out of land, haphazard erection of buildings etc. or with a view to developing and expanding of that area according to proper planning, it may declare the area to be a 'Regulated Area'. 5. or with a view to developing and expanding of that area according to proper planning, it may declare the area to be a 'Regulated Area'. 5. The next relevant provision is S. 4 which deals with the power of the State Government to constitute a Controlling Authority for the discharge of functions assigned to such Authority. Under S. 5, the State Government is empowered to issue regulations in relation to any Regulated Area such as it may consider necessary for the development of any site towards a township or colony, restrictions and conditions subject to which development may be carried out. erection of any buildings or any site, etc. 6. By U.P. Act No. 41 of 1976, S. 5-A was inserted which provides for the preparation of a Master Plan for a regulated area and its revision from time to time. It reads thus. "5-A. Master Plan for the regulated area- ( 1) If in the opinion of the State Government any regulated area requires to be developed according to a Master Plan it may cause such a Plan to be prepared either through the Controlling Authority or through such other agency as it may think fit. (2) Every such plan shall conform to any rules or regulations made in that behalf. (3) A Master Plan shall be revised at the end of every ten years, and may be revised earlier if the State Government so think fit." 7. Before its deletion in 1976, S. 14 of the Act empowered the State Government to' give Directions in respect of all or any of the matters referred to in S. 5 of the unamended Act for any regulated area or all regulated areas in general In the exercise of this power the State Government issued the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Directions, 1960 (briefly, the 'Directions'). Initially there was no provision in these Directions for the preparation of a Master Plan. However, by means of a notification issued by the State Government on April 26, 1972, Directions Nos. 10-A and 10-B were inserted. Initially there was no provision in these Directions for the preparation of a Master Plan. However, by means of a notification issued by the State Government on April 26, 1972, Directions Nos. 10-A and 10-B were inserted. Since considerable debate has centred round Direction 10-A we will extract here the same in extenso : "10-A. Preparation of Master Plan (1) If in the opinion of the State Government any regulated area requires to be developed according to a Master Plan, it may cause such a plan to be prepared either through the Controlling Authority or through such other agency as the State Government may think fit. (2) The Master plan shall be comprehensive plan showing therein the existing and proposed location and general layout of (a) Arterial streets and transportation lines, (b) Residential sections, (c) Business areas, (d) Industrial areas, (e) Educational institutions, (f) Public Parks, play-grounds and other recreational facilities, (g) Public and semi-public buildings, and (h) Other land uses which are necessary. (3) On receipt of the orders of the State Governments, the Controlling Authority or the agency, as the case may be, shall prepare the draft Master Plan and thereafter publish notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in that area, indicating the place or places where copies of the plan may be inspected and inviting objections in writing from the public with respect to the Master Plan within a period of not less than thirty days from the date of the notice is published in the newspaper. (4) After expiry of the aforesaid period, the Controlling Authority or the agency, as the case may be, if it deems necessary, appoint with the prior approval of State Government a Committee consisting of three members, one of whom shall be a Town Planner, to consider the objections and submit its report within such time as may he fixed in this behalf. (5) The Controlling Authority or the agency or the Committee referred to above, as the case may be, shall allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person including representatives of Government Departments or Local Authorities, who have filed any objections and who have made a request for being so heard. (5) The Controlling Authority or the agency or the Committee referred to above, as the case may be, shall allow reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person including representatives of Government Departments or Local Authorities, who have filed any objections and who have made a request for being so heard. (6) The Controlling Authority or the agency as the case may be, shall after considering the ' objections and the report of the committee, if any, finalise the Master Plan and submit the Master Plan along with its comments to the State Government for approval. (7) The State Government may either approve the Master Plan without modifications, or with such modifications as it may consider necessary, or reject the plan with directions to the Controlling Authority or the agency, as the case may be, to prepare a fresh plan according to such directions. (8) Immediately after a plan has been approved by the State Government the Controlling Authority or the agency, as the case may be, shall publish it in such manner as the State Government may specify stating that the plan has been approved and naming a place where a copy of the Plan may be inspected at all reasonable hours and upon the date of the first publication oft he aforesaid notice the plan shall come into operation." 8. Direction 10-B lays down the procedure for the amendment or revision of a Master Plan prepared under Direction 10-A. Simultaneously with the insertion of Directions 10-A and 10-B, the term 'Master Plan' was also defined under Cl. (f) of Direction I of these Directions as : "(f) "Master Plan" means the plan of the regulated area prepared under Direction 10 A of these Directions." 9. The first and the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Master Plan which the State Government has approved under the impugned order dated September 21, 1987 was not one that was prepared under and in accordance with Direction No. 10-A. What was approved by the State Government, it was urged, was a Master Plan prepared during the period when Saharanpur had ceased to be a Regulated Area and consequently any exercise undertaken towards preparation of the so-called Master Plan was of no legal avail even if the State Government approved that plan in the purported exercise of its powers under Cl. (7) of Direction 10-A. 10. (7) of Direction 10-A. 10. We are unable to agree. Before we deal with the contention we may briefly summarise the relevant facts. By means of a notification dated January 29. 1962 the municipal limit of Saharanpur with a distance of two miles surrounding it was declared by the State Government in the exercise of its powers under S. 3 of the Act as a Regulated Area. This declaration was, however. withdrawn by a notification issued by the State Government on August 16, 1967. Subsequently by a notification dated July 17, 1978 the State Government again declared the municipal limit of Saharanpur with a much larger area surrounding it comprising 102 villages as a Regulated Area. 11. Relying on these facts and the facts stated in the counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inasmuch as between August 16, 1967 and July 17, 1978 the municipal limit of Saharanpur and its surrounding area had already ceased to be a Regulated Area, the provisions of the aforesaid Act became inapplicable in respect thereof and consequently the steps which the respondent might have taken for the preparation of a draft Master Plan under the U.P. Municipalities Act could not lend any legitimacy to the proceedings which finally culminated in the impugned order of approval by the State Government on September 21. 1987. 12. We cannot agree. The procedure which was followed by the respondents in the preparation and approval of the Master Plan under challenge was completely in accord with Direction 10-A as we shall presently demonstrate. 13. For appreciating the point a short reference to the background in which the Master Plan in question came to be prepared will be necessary. Even prior to the enactment of the U.Y. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, there was a provision in the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 for preparation of Master Plans for the municipalities. S. 2(8-a) of the U.Y. Municipalities Act defined 'Master Plan as "(8-A) 'Master Plan' means a comprehensive plan showing therein the existing and proposed location and general layout of (a) arterial streets and transportation lines: (b) residential sections: (c) business areas, (d) industrial areas, (e) educational institutions, (f) public parks, play-grounds and other recreational places, (g) public and semi-public buildings, and (h) any other places put to any specified use." 14. This definition of 'Master. This definition of 'Master. Plan' has features which are identical with those of Cl. (2) of Direction 10-A quoted above. Conceptually, therefore, a Master Plan envisaged under the U.P. Municipalities Act had the same basic features as those contemplated under Cl. (2) of Direction 10 A. S. 296(2)(c) of the U.P. Municipalities Act provides that the State Government may make rules consistent with this Act for the appointment of an ad hoc committee to advise the board on the preparation of master plan for the municipality and its execution. Acting under these provisions the State Government appointed an ad hoc committee for the preparation of a master plan for the area covered by the Municipal Board, Saharanpur even before the municipal limit of Saharanpur was first declared to be a 'Regulated Area under the 1958 Act on January 29, 1962. This ad hoc committee got a draft master plan prepared by the Town and Planning Department, U.Y. Lucknow and then published the same inviting objections and suggestions from the residents of Municipal Board, Saharanpur. In pursuance of these notices 392 objections were received and, considered by the ad hoc committee. Finally the modified Master Plan as adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee was published on December 27 and 29, 1967. It was then submitted to the Controlling Authority for approval which was granted on February 19, 1970. Thereafter it was forwarded to the State Government which accorded its approval by an order dated February 5, 1972. 15. No further action appears to have been taken for the enforcement of the above Master Plan until 1-2-83 when the State Government asked the Associate Town and Country Planner, Meerut, and the Town and Country Planner, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, to prepare a revised Master Plan for the Regulated Area of Saharanpur. The reason disclosed in para2(c) of counter-affidavit of this fresh action is the, the earlier Master Plan prepared under the U.P. Municipalities Act was designed to take care of the requirements of the area only for the period 1961 to 1991 whereas the new Master Plan was expected to cater to the needs of much larger area now comprised in Sharanpur as it stood after being declared a Regulated Area in 1978. It is further stated that as the Municipal limit of Saharanpur had ceased to be a 'Regulated Area' between August 16, 1967 and July 17,1978, the State Government's approval dated 5-2-72 could not legally be enforced for the Regulated Area of Saharanpur under the 1958 Act. Consequently, the State Government issued an order dated 1-2-83 directing that a revised Master Plan be prepared by the Associate Town and Country Planner Meerut and Town and Country Planner, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow. This revised Master Plan was expected to cater to the needs of the people of the area right up to the year 2001. 16. With these objectives the revised draft Master Plan was prepared by the Controlling Authority after a detailed survey of the Present Regulated Area of Saharanpur had been carried out by the Chief Town and Country Planner. 17. The aforesaid revised draft Master Plan was considered by the Controlling Authority constituted under the 1958 Act and was accepted at its meeting held on May 14, 1985 at which it was decided that the draft Master Plan should be published inviting objections from the affected persons. In pursuance of this decision and in accordance with Cl. (3) of Direction 10-A notices in respect of the draft Master Plan were published in four newspapers mentioned in paragraph 2(c) of the counter-affidavit. A copy of the draft Master Plan was posted on the notice boards of all the Government offices and Municipal Boards. Pursuant to these notices, as many as 470 objections were received which were heard by a Sub- Committee constituted in that behalf with the approval of the State Government vide its order dated July 1, 1986. The Sub Committee heard the objections on several dates as required by Cl. 5 of Direction 10-A and thereafter submitted its recommendation to the Controlling Authority which, after due deliberations, accepted the same at its meeting held on 6-2-82. Thereafter the Master Plan was submitted to the State Government for its approval under Cl. 7 of Direction 10-A. The State Government by its order dated 21- 9-87, accorded its approval to the Master Plan and directed that the same be enforced after publication. The order of the State Govt. is annexure SCA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the State Govt. on 7-12-87. 18. 7 of Direction 10-A. The State Government by its order dated 21- 9-87, accorded its approval to the Master Plan and directed that the same be enforced after publication. The order of the State Govt. is annexure SCA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the State Govt. on 7-12-87. 18. It will thus be seen that though initially a Master Plan was prepared under the U.P. Municipalities Act for the Municipal Board of Saharanpur, subsequently after Saharanpur was again declared to be a Regulated Area in 1978, a revised draft Master Plan was prepared at the instance of the State Government with a view to catering to the needs of t he Regulated Area of Saharanpur for the period up to 2001. The Master Plan prepared earlier for the Municipal Board was recast after a survey undertaken by the Chief Town and Country Planner under the Government order dated February 1, 1983 (vide Annexure CA-2 to the main counter-affidavit) and thereafter strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Direction 10-A a new Master Plan (loosely described as a revised' Master Plan in Government correspondence because of its previous history) was prepared and approved after every single formality contemplated under Direction 10-A had been scrupulously observed. We, therefore, reject the first and main submission. 19. We also reject the extreme contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the draft Master Plan prepared earlier for the Municipal Board of Saharanpur by the Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the State Government under the U.Y. Municipalities Act could not furnish even a base or working material to the Controlling Authority constituted under the new Act for preparing a revised Master Plan in accordance with the Directions quoted above. A distinction must, in our opinion, be made between a Master Plan property so-called as finally approved by the State Government under Cl. (7) of Direction 10-A and a draft Master Plan prepared by the Town Planner starting from which the competent authority could prepare a revised draft Master Plan. Master Plan is after all but a comprehensive plan showing the general layout of streets, transportation lines, residential sections, public parks, play- grounds and other places which may be indicated in the plan drawn for a town or city or any other local area. Master Plan is after all but a comprehensive plan showing the general layout of streets, transportation lines, residential sections, public parks, play- grounds and other places which may be indicated in the plan drawn for a town or city or any other local area. The authority charged with the duty of preparing a master plan under the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act could hence utilise the draft which had already been prepared as a Master Plan for the Municipal Board, Saharanpur. as a sort of working material for preparing a draft revised Master Plan. 20. Be that as it may, the revised Master Plan was prepared under the orders of the State Government after Saharanpur had again been declared as a Regulated Area in 1978 and in the preparation of the Master Plan submitted for the approval of the State Government, the Controlling Authority had adopted the procedure prescribed under Direction 10,,A. We. therefore, reject the petitioners' contention that there has been any procedural flaw in the preparation of the Master Plan. 21. We may here dispose of another subsidiary point raised by the learned counsel founded on CL (1) of Direction 10-A. It was contended that the State Government had not specifically asked the Controlling Authority to prepare a Master Plan for Saharanpur and consequently the State Government could not validly approve the .draft Master Plan submitted by the Controlling Authority for its approval. There is no substance in this argument. In the counter-affidavit it has been categorically averred that the State Government had by means of its letter dated February 1. 1983 (vide Annexure CA-2 to the counter-affidavit) issued directions for preparation of a revised Master Plan in pursuance whereof the Chief Town and Country Planner had made a detailed survey of the city and its surroundings covered by the Master Plan and prepared on the basis of that survey the revised Master Plan which was considered and adopted by the Controlling Authority at its meeting held on May 14, 1985. This letter refers to the correspondence which appears to have been going oh in regard of the preparation of Master Plan for Saharanpur. The contents of this letter leave no manner of doubt that the Master Plan was prepared under the express orders of the State Government. This letter refers to the correspondence which appears to have been going oh in regard of the preparation of Master Plan for Saharanpur. The contents of this letter leave no manner of doubt that the Master Plan was prepared under the express orders of the State Government. From the facts stated in the counter-affidavit it is firmly established that the State Government had been issuing directions for the preparation of a Master Plan for Saharanpur right from the early sixties and after Saharanpur was again declared as a Regulated Area the State Government issued fresh directions for the preparation of a revised Master Plan. The requirement of Cl. (1) of Direction 10-A was hence fully complied with. 22. This brings us to the second contention which was that in several proceedings arising under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 the finding recorded by the competent authority as well as the appellate Courts was that there did not exist any Master Plan for the Regulated Area of Saharanpur. The State Government was party to the litigation and consequently it is not open to it now to contend that a valid Master Plan operates for the aforesaid area. 23. The submission is devoid of any merit, In the first place, in our opinion, the issue whether a valid Master Plan exists for the Regulated Area of Saharanpur or not was not directly or substantially in issue in the present from in those proceedings. The issue is, in our opinion, essentially one of fact and the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar in support of the plea of bar of res judicata could not, in our considered view, operate as a judgment in rem so as to foreclose the issue in hand Secondly, the consideration of the issue whether any particular piece of land .situate within the Regulated Area of Saharanpur was liable to be treated as a vacant land under S. 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling an Regulation) Act, 1976, depended on to question whether a Master Plan prepared under the U.Y. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, has been enforced in t area after approval. It is apparent that view of the clear stand taken by the State Government that 'the Master Plan was approved on September 21, 1987 and not earlier, there could not be any escape from the conclusion under the proceedings arising under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 that there did not exist till that date any enforceable Master Plan in respect of that area. This submission, therefore, also fails and is rejected. 24. That finally takes us to the last submission. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners were denied the opportunity of being heard which was mandatory of clause (5) of Direction 10-A. In this connection, learned counsel relied on paragraphs 26 and 27 of the petition in which it is alleged that though the controlling Authority had fixed September 20, 1986 for the hearing of the petitioners' objections, the hearing was already concluded on September 19, 1986. This fact the petitioners came to know when they went to the office of the Controlling Authority on September 20, 1986. 25. The allegations on which the above submission is founded have been denied in the counter affidavit as well as in the supplementary counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. In these counter and supplementary counter affidavits facts have been set out in considerable details as to the manner in which the sub-committee constituted,by the State Government by its order dated July 1. 1986 to hear objections filed against the draft Master Plan dealt with the objections. Four hundred and seventy objections were received which were heard by the sub-committee on various dates. It is asserted that the persons who filed their objections were personally informed of the dates fixed for the hearing of the objections. The details of personal service effected on the petitioners have also been set out in the counter affidavit. It is stated that the initial notice dated September 6, 1986 fixing September 20, 1986 for the petitioners' objections was superseded by another notice dated September 16, 1986 in which it was mentioned that the hearing of the petitioners' objections shall take place on September 19, 1986 instead of September 20, 1986. This notice was served on petitioner No. 1 through Rajesh Kumar peon working in the office of the Tahsildar. 26. This notice was served on petitioner No. 1 through Rajesh Kumar peon working in the office of the Tahsildar. 26. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the facts stated in the counter affidavit with regard to the service of the notice on the petitioners. Indeed from a copy of the proceedings and recommendation of the Sub-committee constituted to hear the objections which have been filed along with the petitioners' supplementary affidavit as annexures 2 and 3, there is no manner of doubt left that full and effective opportunity of being beard was given by the sub-committee to the objectors. From the extract of these proceedings and the averments made in the counter affidavit we are more than convinced that clause (5) of Direction 10-A had been complied with both in letter and in spirit. 27. The above discussion disposes of all the submissions made in support of the petition. 28. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.