JUDGMENT A.N. Varma and B.N. Misra, JJ. - Challenging the validity of notifications issued under Section 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parished Adhiniyam (hereinafter called `the Adhiniyam'), the petitioners have urged three points for our consideration. 2. The first is that after the area within which the land in dispute if situated was declared to be a Development Area under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act and a Master Plan was prepared thereafter, the respondent Parishad could not continue the housing scheme notified under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam without the appproval of the State Government in view of Section 59 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, in view of the fact that in the present case the notification under Section 32 had not been issued prior to declaration of the Dehra Dun Development Area. 3. We are unable to agree with this submission. A complete answer to this submission is furnished by a notification which has been issued under Section 53 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act vide Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit exempting the housing scheme framed by Parishad from the operation of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act. In view of this notification it was not incumbent upon the Parishad to obtain approval of the State Government for continuing the scheme in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. 4. The Second contention was that the State Government has no power to issue a notification under Section 53 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act in a case where the approval of the State Government for continuing a housing scheme notified under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam has not been obtained. It is not possible to read any such restriction in Section 53 has been expressed in the widest possible terms. Further, it begins with "non obstante" clause which clearly suggests that it has an overriding effect. We find nothing in the notification issued under Section 53 of the Act which might suggest that the State Government has exercised its power illegally or arbitrarily. 5. The last submission was that the petitioners were not served with the notice contemplated under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam. We find nothing in the notification issued under Section 53 of the Act which might suggest that the State Government has exercised its power illegally or arbitrarily. 5. The last submission was that the petitioners were not served with the notice contemplated under Section 29 of the Adhiniyam. This contention is liable to be rejected on the ground that the notification under Section 32 was issued on 18-4-1987, i.e., more than one year. It is too late in the day now to entertain this objection at the instance of two individuals in regard to a Housing Scheme which seems to have been generally accepted. The notification under Section 34 of the Adhiniyam has already been, published and it is unlikeiy that the petitioners have remained unaw ire of the proceedings under the Adhiniyam during all period. The Housing Scheme affects numerous persons. None except the petitioner has complained about non-service of the notice. 6. For the reasons given above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily.