JUDGMENT - C. MOOKERJEE, J.:---The petitioner Jimmy Gazdar claims to be the absolute owner of the land bearing Survey No. 88/0 situated at Sinquerim, Bardez Taluka withing Village Panchayat of Candolim, Goa. On December 18, 1986 the Panjim Planning and Development Authority had served upon the petitioner a notice under section 53 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, directing him to stop the construction of a bungalow and compound wall in Survey No. 88/0. He was also asked to show cause why action shall not be taken against him under the said Act. The notice alleged that he was carrying on development work without obtaining sanction under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act. On 27th December, 1981 the petitioner had showed cause. He claimed that he was holder of a licence for the said construction of his bungalow which was deemed to be granted in March 1986 to him in terms of Regulation 83(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulations 1962, by the Village Panchayat of Candolim and that the petitioner had commenced construction in March 1986. According to the petitioner the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and illegal. Thereupon the Planning and Development Authority had sought from the petitioner some clarifications. The petitioner sent a reply reiterating that the Planning and Development Authority, Panjim had no jurisdiction either to issue the show cause notice or to call upon him to stop construction of his bungalow. 2. On 25th March, 1987 the Member Secretary of Panjim Planning and Development Authority informed the petitioner the reasons for rejecting his contentions and that the Authority had decided to take action under sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioner was asked to demolish the works commenced by him and to discountinue the use of the land immediately. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 52(2)(b) read with section 50 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. The Chief Town Planner and Member Secretary, Goa Town and Country Planning Board at Panjims by his letter informed the appellant that the notices issued under section 52 of the Act were in accordance with law. The appeal had been, therefore, dismissed. 4. The Chief Town Planner and Member Secretary, Goa Town and Country Planning Board at Panjims by his letter informed the appellant that the notices issued under section 52 of the Act were in accordance with law. The appeal had been, therefore, dismissed. 4. Thereupon the petitioner Jimmy Gazdar filed the instant writ petition before a learned Single Judge of Goa Bench of this Court. Pending admission, the learned Single Judge had granted interim orders in terms of prayer (c) of the petition. On 12th November, 1987 the writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the said rejection order. The Division Bench at Goa had admitted the said appeal and had granted interim orders in favour of the appellant. The state had preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the said appellate order of the Division Bench contending inter alia that the said appeal was not maintainable. In the meantime, the writ petition and also the Letters Patent Appeal were transferred to Bombay Bench. 5. The learned Advocate general of Goa has informed us that the State of Goa has withdrawn the aforesaid special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court. Both parties have submitted that they have no objection if instead of taking up the final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal the intire Writ Petition may be finally disposed of. We have accordingly heard at length submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties to the writ petition. We may also record that for disposing of this writ petition it is not necessary to decide whether or not the development of a land in Goa State could not be lawfully prohibited on the ground that such development was being undertaken within a specified distance from the high tide line It is also unnecessary to decide whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable or not. 6. In this Writ Petition, two main points, one of fact and the other of law, arise for determination. Firstly, on what date the development of the land in question had been commenced by the petitioner. 6. In this Writ Petition, two main points, one of fact and the other of law, arise for determination. Firstly, on what date the development of the land in question had been commenced by the petitioner. Secondly, whether it ought to be presumed that a deemed licence in terms of Regulation 83(2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayats Regulations had been granted to the petitioner and whether a permission under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, was necessary for carrying on aforesaid development work by the petitioner. 7. In his writ petition' the petitioner did not fully set out the material facts. There is considerable force in the submission of the learned Advocate General for Goa, who has appeared for the respondend Nos. 1 and 2, that the petitioner suppressed the facts relating to rejection of his previous application for grant of licence/permission for development of the plot recorded as Survey No. 88/0, village Sinquerim. The Member Secretary, Panjim planning and Development Authority, in his affidavite in reply affirmed on 3rd September, 1988 has mentioned that in March 1975 the petitioner had applied to the Village Panchayat of Candolim for granting permission to construct one storey building in the said Survey No. 88/0. On 21st March, 1975 the plan submitted by the petitioner was recieved in the officer of the Senior Town Planner from the Assistant Engineer, Works Division II, P.W.D. Sub-Division II, Mapusa. The Government finally rejected the petitioner's said plan and by letter dated 19-7-1977 of the under Secratary, Urban Development Department of the Government, informed that while his plan was under consideration, the petition had allegedly commenced construction and the village panchayat, Condolim by the letter dated 29-11-1975 had asked him to stop construction work. The petitioner by this letter dated 19-3-1976 had requested the Town Planning Department to sanction his plan for construction of a bungalow. the respondents in their affidavit in reply have also mentioned that by his letter dated 15th April, 1983 the chairman of Village Panchayat, Candolim, had forwarded for approval of the Chief Town Planner the plans submitted by the petitioner for construction of walls and the roof on the existing foundations (vide Exhibit R/5 to the affidavit in reply of R.N. Ray dated 3-9-1988. The Chief Town Planner by his letter dated 7-6-1983 had informed the village panchayat that the constuction by the petitioner on the plinth was illegal and his case for construction of a house would be placed before the E.C.O. Development Council and the committee. By his letter dated 25-6-1983 the Chief Town Planner had informend the Sarpanch of the village Panchayat that the E.C.O. Central Committee at its meeting dated 18-6-1983 had decided not to allow the construction proposed by the petitioner (vide Exhibit R/7) to the affidavit in reply of R.N. Ray). By his another letter dated 28-7-1983 the chief Twon Planned had further clarified the matter. 8. On 10th November, 1985 the petitioner had made another applicationto the Village Panchayat, Candolim, for granting him licence under Regulation 83(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Village Panchayat Regulations, 1962, to erect abuilding upon Survey No. 88/0. The panchayat did not, however, communicate its santion of refusal in respect of the petitioners said fresh application within two months from the date of the receipt thereof. Accordingly the petitioner has contended that under Regulation 83(2) permission by the Panchayat for the erection of the building by the petitioner must be presumed. the petitioner by his letter dated 15th March, 1986 (Exhibit 1 to the Writ Petition) had given notice to the Village Panchayat, but since he did not receive any reply within sixty days, the licence to eract shall be deemed to have been granted to him. He had further started"........the undersigned shall start the work of construction immediately". On 22nd april, 1986 the Chairman of Candolim Village Panchayat had written him a letter stating that it had been brought to their notice that the petitioner had started construction of a residential house at Sinquerim without licence from their office. He was asked to stop work and to show cause. 9. There are several serious impediments in the way of the petitioner successfully establishing his claim that he was holder of a deemed licence for constructing the buildings on aforesaid land. In the first place, his previous application for permission to erect had been finally rejected (vide Exhibit R/2 to the affidavit in reply of R.N. Ray dated 3rd September, 1988). The petitioner had not challenged by way of an appeal or otherwise the said previous rejection order. In the first place, his previous application for permission to erect had been finally rejected (vide Exhibit R/2 to the affidavit in reply of R.N. Ray dated 3rd September, 1988). The petitioner had not challenged by way of an appeal or otherwise the said previous rejection order. It may be contended that there was no scope for making a fresh application for sanction/licence to erect building upon the land in question. further in case any other law imposed restriction or prohibition upon carrying out building construction upon the petitioner's land situated in village Sinqurim, merely on the basis of a purported deemed licence to erect under Regulation 83(2) of the Goa. Daman and Diu Village Panchayats Regulations, the petitioner would not be entitled to construct any building upon his said land without first obtaining permission and/or sanction under the said other law. Accordingly to the respondents, without obtain in permission under section 43 of the Goa, Daman and Diu town and country Planning Act, 1974 the petitioner was not entitled to erect his building. 10. We have already mentioned that on 22nd April, 1986, the Chairman, Candolim Village Panchayat, had sent a notice to the petitioner, inter alia, stating that the construction commenced by him was illegal. On 29th April, 1986 the petitioner sent another letter to the Panchayat. He had referred to his previous letter dated 20-3-1986 and had claimed that his said construction was legal. On 9th july, 1986 the petitioner had instituted Suit No. 286 of 1986 in the Court of Civil judge, junior Division, Mapusa for permanent injunction against Candolim Panchayat for restraining it from demolishing the building then under construction. the State of Goa was not made a party to the said civil suit. On 13th December, 1986 the planning and Development Authority, Panaji, had served a notice upon the petitioner to stop construction work and to show cause why action shall not be taken against the petitioner. It is immaterial that the Deputy Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, did not raise any objection to the construction of any building by the petitioner. 11. While the aforesaid suit brought by the petitioner was still pending, the village panchayat candolim, at a meeting held on 20th December, 1986 resolved to grant licence under Regulation 83(1) to the petitioner. It is immaterial that the Deputy Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, did not raise any objection to the construction of any building by the petitioner. 11. While the aforesaid suit brought by the petitioner was still pending, the village panchayat candolim, at a meeting held on 20th December, 1986 resolved to grant licence under Regulation 83(1) to the petitioner. It is significant that the Panchayat did consider that licence under Regulation 83(2) should be deemed to have been granted, but the Panchayat resolved to grant a licence. On 20-12-1986 the Chairman of the Panchayat had informed the petitioner that the Panchayat had resolved to grant a formal licence to the petitioner. The petitioner had also deposited the usual fees payable for obtaining a formal licence under Regulation 83(1). On 31st January, 1987 the Defendant Panchayat filed a petition before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa, stating that it had already granted a licence to the plaintiff to carry out construction of his house. Hence the cause of action for the said suit did not survive. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mappusa, passed the following order :- "Since the licence is granted by the defendent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit". 12. We have already mentioned that the Planning and Development Authority, Panaji, had directed the petitioner not to construct and to demolish the structure already created. The town Planning Board had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 13. The Legislature of Goa, Daman and Diu enacted the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act "to provide for planning and development and use of rural and urban land......and for purposes conected therewith." the respondents have disclosed that a notification under section 18(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, was published in the extraordinary issue of Government Gazette dated 29-3-1977 declaring the revenue village of Candolim as a planning area (vide Exhibit R/9 to the affidavit in reply of R.N. Ray dated 3rd September, 1988). In exercise of its powers under sub-section (3) of section18 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 the Government of Goa by an order dated 1-4-1986 amalgamated Candolim, Calangute and Anjuna planning areas and panaji planning area into one planning area to be known as Panaji Planning Area. The order under section 18(3) dated 1-4-1986 was published in the Government Gazette dated 24th April, 1986. The order under section 18(3) dated 1-4-1986 was published in the Government Gazette dated 24th April, 1986. The respondent submitted that since 1st April, 1986 Candolim was part of a planning area Alternatively, at least since 24th April, 1986, when the Gazette notification was published, Candolim village in which the petitioner's land was situated was included in a planning area. Once the village became part of a planning area, the developmentr and use of lands in the said village became subject to control under the Town and Country Planning Act. Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act prohibits development of any land without payment of development charges and without permission under section 44 of the Act. 14. Mr. Ashok Desai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the actual construction of the Petitioner's building having commenced in March 1986 i.e. prior to the date of inclusion of Candolim village in Panaji planning area, neither section 43 nor section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act was attracted to the said construction work. According to Mr. Desai, section 43 does not make construction carried out before the date of enforcement of the Act in the area illegal nor does the section 43 require that fresh permission must be obtained for a development work which had already commenced before the Town and Country Planning Act was extended to the area. Section 44 applies, according to Mr. Desai, only when land is intended to be developed in a planning area i.e. it is a condition precedent to commencement of development work. When at the date the Town and Country planning Act was first extended, construction work had already commenced by the petitioner and therefore section 44 was not attracted to such on-going construction work. Mr. Desai has further submitted that when a construction work was pending when the Town and Country Planning Act was extended to the said area, in a proper case proper section 50 and not section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act might be applicable. Mr. Desai assailed the impugned orders (Exhibits 'A' and 'B' to the Writ petition) on the ground that the said orders disregarded that the petitioner had commenced construction on the authority of a valid licence under Regulation 83(2) of the Panchayat Regulations and not under a formal licence granted by the Village Panchayat on 20th December, 1987. Mr. Desai assailed the impugned orders (Exhibits 'A' and 'B' to the Writ petition) on the ground that the said orders disregarded that the petitioner had commenced construction on the authority of a valid licence under Regulation 83(2) of the Panchayat Regulations and not under a formal licence granted by the Village Panchayat on 20th December, 1987. The impugned orders did not also take into consideration that the Planning and Development Authority, Panaji, in his noticed dated 18th December, 1986 had mentioned that the petitioner had already commenced development work. Lastly, Mr. Desai has submitted that section 134(1) of the Town and Country planning act does not apply in the instant case. Because the petitioner was not liable to obtain permission under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act for the construction work which started before the village became part of Panaji planning Area. 15. We regret that we are unable to accept the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The object of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974, is to provide for planning the development and use of land in Goa, Daman and Diu. A declaration of a Planning Authority made under section 18 of the Act result in a train of consequences. The Government under section 20 proceeds to constitute the planning and Development Authority. The section 22 of the Act sets out the function and power of the Planning and Development Authority which include---- "(a) to prepare an existing land use made; ... ... .... ....... (c) to prepare a comprehensive developoment plan; (d) to prepare and prescribe uses of land within its areas; (e) to prepare schemes of development and undertake their implementation." The procedure for preparation of a development plans has been laid down by the provisions Contained in Chapter VI of the Town and Country Planning Act. Some period of time is bound to elape between the date on which a declaration under section 18(1) of the Act is made and the date on which a development plan comes into operation under section 37 of the Act. In case before the development plan is finally made, unregulated developments of land are made, the object of planned area may be frustrated. Therefore as soon as an is declared a planning area the development and use of lands on the area are regulated. In case before the development plan is finally made, unregulated developments of land are made, the object of planned area may be frustrated. Therefore as soon as an is declared a planning area the development and use of lands on the area are regulated. The broad object of the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the Act is control development and use of land in an area to which the Act has been made applicable. Section 43 days down :- "43. Prohibition of Development without payment of development charges and without permission.---Subject to the provisions of this Act, no development, in respect of, or change of use, of any land shall be undertaken or carried out, in an area after the application of this Act to such area :- (a) Without obtaining a certificate from the Planning and Development Authority concerned that the development charges as leviable under this Act has been paid or that no such development charge is leviable; and (b) without obtaining a permission under section 44 :- Provided that no such permission shall be necessary :- (i) XXXX (ii) XXXX (iii) XXXX (iv) XXXX (v) XXXX (vi) XXXX (vii) XXXX" The provision to section 43 dispenses with the requirement of obtaining permission in the cases coming under clauses (i) to (vii). The petitioner does not claim that his case is covered by the proviso to section 43. The section 43 applies to (a) every development work and (b) change of user of any l; and which may be undertaken of carried out after application of the Act to the area. The section 2(10) defines the expression "development" very widely. Construction of a building certainly comes within the ambit of the said expression. The section 43 makes it obligatory to obtain (i) a certificate regarding payment of development charges and (ii) a permission under section 44 both in respect of development of a land and change of its use either undertaken or carried out after the Act is made applicable to the area. The Legislature having used both the expressions "undertaken" and "carried out", we ought to hold that these expressions denote different and distinct activites. We cannot treat them as synonymous and thereby make the expression "carried out" mere surplusage. The learned Advocate General for Goa is right in his submission that it is necessary to give meaning to both these expressions. The Legislature having used both the expressions "undertaken" and "carried out", we ought to hold that these expressions denote different and distinct activites. We cannot treat them as synonymous and thereby make the expression "carried out" mere surplusage. The learned Advocate General for Goa is right in his submission that it is necessary to give meaning to both these expressions. According to Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, Unabridged 2nd edition, the meaning of 'undertake' is to engage in; to entre upon; to take in hand; to begin to perform." The words "carry out' mean 'put into practice; to get done; to bring into completion." Section 43 of the Town and Country Planning Act ought to be interpreted so as to give effect to the objects of the Act. The scheme of the said Act is that once the Act becomes applicable to an area, development work or change of user of land in a planned area shall be neither commenced and initiated nor such activities shall be carried on i.e. further proceeded with or executed without fulfilling the requirenments of section 43 of the said Act. 16. The provisions of section 43 are in furtherance of the object of controlling development works in planning areas. In case it is held that the prohibition under section 43 applies only to those developments or uses of lands which are undertaken after a declaration under section 18(1) of the Act is made, the planned and controlled development may not be fully achieved. In case the interpretation of section 43 but by the petitioner is accepted, the unplanned development and uses which were commenced before the date of the publication of a notification under section 18(1) of the Act but are still being carried out after the said date would be beyond the control of the development authorities, it would defeat the object of planned development secondly, in the matter of exercising control, it would be arbitrary to make such a differential treatment between those development works and uses of lands which commenced before the date of the notification under section 18(1) and are undertaken and carried out after the date of such notification under section 18(1) of the Act. Because those who started their development before the notification under section 18(1) of the Act would be able to carry with impugnity development of lands even after the area become a planned area in a manner contrary to the proposed plan for the area, while only those who commence development work after notification under section 18(1) would be restrained from making development with out permission. It would be more resonable to interprete section 43 of the Act to mean that irrespective of the date of commencement all development and case of land on a development area would be subject to restrictions under said section 43. After an area is notified under section 18(1) of the Act all development and use of land come under control under the Act. 17. Mr. Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner, has on the other hand urged that section 44 clearly provides that any person intending to carry out any development in respect of or change of user of, any land must obtain prior permission from the Planning and Development Authority. In case development works or changes of user of lands were under taken before the date of the notification under section 18(1), there could be no occasion for obtaining permission under section 44. According to Mr. Desai, sections 43 and 44 are complementary to each other. Therefore, section 43 applies only to those cases in which permission is required to be obtained under section 44 for carrying out development works or effecting changes of user of land in a planned area. This argument appears to be attractive, but upon closer examination the same is not sustainable. The section 43 prohibits both undertaking and also carrying out development of land and change of user of land in a planned area without fulfilment of conditions (a) and (b). In its sweep section 43 applies to development and change of user of land which started or commenced after the date of the notification under section 18(1) and also the activities which might have commenced before such notification and are still being carried on. Our above view is fully in accord with sections 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. 18. We may also refer to section 134 of the Act which deals with the effect of other laws. Our above view is fully in accord with sections 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1974. 18. We may also refer to section 134 of the Act which deals with the effect of other laws. Sub-section (1) of section 134 lays down that save as provided in the Town and Country Planning Act, the provisions of the 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. Thus, under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 134, even when approval or sanction for development had been obtained under any other law, such development cannot validly be undertaken or carried on without obtaining permission for development under the Town and Country Planning Act. In other words, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law in a planning area, no development can be validly undertaken or carried on without obtaining permission for development under the Town and Country Planning Act. In case of repugnancy between the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act and those of village panchayat Regulations. In fact there is nothing in these regulations to argue that requirements for obtaining permission under any other law have been dispensed with. Therefore, even assuming the petitioner held a licence under regulation 83 of the village panchayats regulations, he cannot validly undertake or carry on development of his land without obtaining permission for development of his land under the Town and Country Planning Act. 19. We have also indicated that in the context of section 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the expression "carried out" means to bring to completion or to continue the work of development. Once the village Candolim formed part of Panaji planning area, the petitiones could not validly carry on development of his land without first obtaining permission for development under the Town and Country Planning Act. This is the combined effect of the provisions contained in sections 43, 44 and 134 of the Town and Country Planning Act. After a village forms part of a development area, all developments or changes of user of land in such area must conform to the development plan under preparation or regulation. This is the combined effect of the provisions contained in sections 43, 44 and 134 of the Town and Country Planning Act. After a village forms part of a development area, all developments or changes of user of land in such area must conform to the development plan under preparation or regulation. Although no permission under section 44 would be necessary for carrying on works mentioned in proviso (ii) of section 43 to the Central Government or the Government or any local authority are bound under sub-section (2) of section 44 to notify the Planning and Development Authority their intention to carry out development works or to effect change of user of their land. In case the Planning and Development Authority raises objection, the Government concerned or the local authority would be required to modify their proposals. 20. An order passed under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act is appealable to the Board under section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Board as the appellate authority may unconditionally grant permission or grant it subject to such condition as it might think fit. We are unable to accept the petitioner's submission that it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to hold that on-going development works would also require permission under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act. In case of refusal permission or grant of conditional permission, the Government has obligation under section 47 of the Act to acquire such land in case such a land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing State or in case conditions for granting the permission render the land incapable of reasonably beneficial use. Section 48 of the Act provides for payment of compensation to the owner for refusal under section 45 of permission of grant of conditional permission in certain cases. Section 50 of the Act has conferred power upon the Planning and Development Authority to revoke or modify permission to development granted under Town and Country Planning Act or any other law. It is significant that under proviso to sub-section(1) of section 50, such revocation or modification shall not affect operations previously carried out. No revocation or modification order can be passed after the building operations or change of user have been completed or had taken place. It is significant that under proviso to sub-section(1) of section 50, such revocation or modification shall not affect operations previously carried out. No revocation or modification order can be passed after the building operations or change of user have been completed or had taken place. Thus, under said proviso to section 50(1) the revocation or modification of any permission shall not be ordered after the construction had been completed or after change had already taken place. But when construction activities are incomplete, the authority can revoke or modify permission obtained termporarily. No similar protection has been given to that incomplete activity. The Government under section 52 has been given power to require removal of unauthorised development or change of user within four years of such development or change. The sub-section (2)(a) of section 52 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by a notice under section 52(1) may apply for permission under section 44 for retention on the land of any buildings or works for continuance of any use of land to which the notice under section 52(1) retates. Such a person alternatively may, under section 52(2)(b), prefer appeal to the Board. Thus, the provisions of section 52(2)(a) show that even in case prior permission under section 44(1) was not obtained before undertaking a development or change of use of a land, after receiving notice under section 52(1), the person concerned may apply for permission under section 44 in respect of such unauthorised development or change of use of land. The Planning and Development Authority under section 53 has power to stop unauthorised development or change of use of land which are being carried out in the manner specififed in Clauses (a) to (f) of section 51(1) but have not been completed. The said Authority under section 54(1) has power to require removal of unauthorised development or use which may be expedient in the interest of the proper planning of the area or having regard to the development plan prepared or to be prepared. Such an order is appelable to the Board. Any person who has suffered damage in consequence of such removal order can, under section 54(4), claim compensation for damages or expenses reasonably incurred. He can, under section 54(5), claim compensation because by reason of compliance with a demolition order his and has become incapable of beneficial use. 21. Such an order is appelable to the Board. Any person who has suffered damage in consequence of such removal order can, under section 54(4), claim compensation for damages or expenses reasonably incurred. He can, under section 54(5), claim compensation because by reason of compliance with a demolition order his and has become incapable of beneficial use. 21. Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act deals with interim provision pending preparation of development plan. We find no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in case of a development work which commenced before the area is declared a planned area, the section 44 of the Act cannot apply and only section 50 of the Act may be invoked. We have indicated even in case development activities are commenced or carried on without first obtaining permission under section 44 of the Act after receiving notice under section 52(1) of the Act an aggrieved person under section 52(2)(a) may apply for permission under section 44 of the Act. It would be erroneous to argue that in case of a development activity commenced under licence, permission obtained under some other law, the Development and Planning Authority under Town and Country Planning Act can not insist upon obtaining permission under section 44 of Country and Town Planning Act and the authority can only invoke its power to revoke or modify permission granted under any other law (in this case Regulation 83 of Village Panchayat Regulations). We have already referred to section 104(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act which inter alia lays down that when permission has not been obtained under Town and Country Planning Act, development cannot be carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under any other law for such development had been obtained. 22. The Planning and Development Authority under section 50 no doubt has power to revoke or modify a permission granted under any other law. Such a revocatioon or modification of a permission obtained under any other law is to be made in order to ensure that if such permission is in conformity with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act. Such a revocatioon or modification of a permission obtained under any other law is to be made in order to ensure that if such permission is in conformity with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act. Secondly, even if the Planning and Developing Authority has power to revoke or modify permission under section 50, it does not follow that a permission under section 44 would no be required in case of construction which are carried on without such permission. The sections 43 and 134 make abundantly clear that in case of all constructions/developments are carried on after the Town and Country Planning Act becomes applicable to the area, then the permission under section 44 of the Act must be obtained. Permission or approval obtained for such development under any other law would not be sufficient and permission under section 44 of the Town and Country Planning Act would be required for such on going construction. The Planning and Development Authority under section 50 may also modify or revoke the permission on approval obtained for such development under any other law. 23. In the instant case, thepetitioner claims that he held a deemed licence under regulation 83(2) of Village Panchayat Regulations. Even if this claim is this claim is upheld, without obtaining permission under section 44 of Town and Country Planning Act, he can not carry on development of his land in village Candolim. The authorities had power to stop under section 53 the said unauthorised development by the petitioner and also to require the petitioner to remove developments unauthorisedly carried out after the said village became part of Panaji development area. The impugned orders Exhibits 'A' and 'B' to the Writ Petition do not suffer from any jurisdictional errors. The Rule must fail. 24. The Rule is discharged with costs. The letters Patent Appeal which has become infructuous is also dismissed. The statement recorded in the order dated 12-9-1988 continues for a period of eight weeks. The respondent No. 1 not to demolish any construction or any part thereof for a period of eight weeks. Rule discharged. -----