ORDER V.S. Kokje, J. -- 2. This is one of the three petitions challenging the Scheme No. 23 of the Ujjain Development Authority. The other petitions are Misc. Petition No. 1707/86 (Raj Kumar Johri v. The Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran & ors.) and Misc. Petition No. 1746/86 (Bansidhar & Ors. v. The Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran & Ors). Since the petitions raised common points, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 1707/86 and Misc. Petition No. 1746/86. 3. The contention of the petitioners in short is that they hold land in village Nanakheda Tehsil and District Ujjain. On 23rd September, 1977 a notification dated 18.8.1977 under the purported exercise of power under section 50(2) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Adhiniyam') was published in the M.P. Gazette, declaring the intention of the Ujjain Development Authority (UDA for short) to prepare a Town Development Scheme for remodelling the area bounded by Ujjain-Dewas Road, Ujjain-Sanwer Road and Government Engineering College Road for development of residential colonies, commercial centres, public officer, public amenities etc. This notification according to the petitioners was issued without there being any resolution passed by the UDA for the purpose. On 10.2.1978, another notification was published in the Gazette of M.P., in the purported exercise of powers under S. 50(3) of the Adhiniyam, notifying that a Draft of Development Scheme No. 23 had been prepared for the aforesaid area, a copy whereof was made available for inspection at the office of the UDA and Joint Director Town & Country Planning, Indore. By this notification objections or suggestions were invited within 30 days. On 2.6.1978 a notification dated 12.4.1978 issued by the UDA in the purported exercise of powers u/s. 50(7) of the Adhiniyam, specifying certain numbers of the lands included in the Scheme No. 23, which was said to have been sanctioned under S. 50(4) of the Adhiniyam. On 11.8.1978 another notification dated 17.6.1978 was published in the Gazette of M.P. in the purported exercise of powers under S. 50(7) of the Adhiniyam, including certain other survey Nos. of village Nanakheda and village Malanwasa in the Scheme. 4. On 11.8.1978 another notification dated 17.6.1978 was published in the Gazette of M.P. in the purported exercise of powers under S. 50(7) of the Adhiniyam, including certain other survey Nos. of village Nanakheda and village Malanwasa in the Scheme. 4. On 16.2.1979 a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazelle of M.P. notifying that certain lands in village Nanakheda and of other villages were needed or likely to be needed for the purpose of implementation of Scheme No. 23 of the UDA. This was followed by a further notification published in the Gazelle of M.P. dated 13.4.1979 u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners' lands were included in the notification. A petition was filed in the High Court of M.P. at Indore, challenging the aforesaid notifications under the Land Acquisition Act. This petition was registered as Misc. Petition No. 126/79. It was allowed on 17.9.1980 and both the aforesaid notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were quashed. 5. After a gap of about 5 years another notification dated 3.7.1985 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette of M.P. dated 2.8.1985 for acquiring lands, including the petitioners' land for the purpose of Scheme No. 23 of the UDA. The petitioners filed objections to the acquisition under S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act before respondent No.3, the Land Acquisition Officer, Ujjain. On 14.7.1986 the case was fixed for arguments. On that date a joint request was made by all the objectors that before proceeding further in the matter, the spot may he inspected. The request was granted and 15.7.86 was fixed for inspecting the spot. However, spot inspection did not take place as scheduled on 15.7.86 and on 16.7.86 a spot inspection note prepared on the basis of spot inspection, which had taken place on 20.3.85 in presence of the Land Acquisition Officer, Executive Engineer, UDA, Patwari Pradhikaran and Patwari Village was placed on record behind the back of the petitioners. The record was then sent to the Collector District Ujjain, who accorded sanction to the acquisition on 22.7.86 and ordered that notice under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act be issued and published. The record was then sent to the Collector District Ujjain, who accorded sanction to the acquisition on 22.7.86 and ordered that notice under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act be issued and published. The petitioners applied for copies of the report etc., which were not supplied to them and on 25.7.86 notification dated 22.7.86 u/s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette of M.P. This notification is under challenge in this petition. 6. The petitioners have also made a grievance that they have been discriminated against inasmuch as permission for private development of the land was granted to some other persons, whose land had come under acquisition but had not been granted to the petitioners. According to the petitioners on 11.7.84 they made an application to the respondent No.1 UDA for permission to develop their lands by construction of a residential building according to the plans annexed to the application. In this application, the petitioners had pointed out instances in which such permission was granted. 7. Return has been filed in the case on behalf of respondent No.1 alone. The Collector district Ujjain, the Land Acquisition officer, Ujjain and the State of M.P. have not filed any return. In its return the UDA has contended that no resolution was necessary for the UDA for issuing a notification under the Adhiniyam or framing a scheme. According to respondent No.1 it was a single member Corporation and the decision of the single member to issue a notification was itself a resolution. As regards two notifications under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act it was stated that through inadvertence some lands remained to be included in the first notification and, therefore, a supplementary notification was issued. As regards Misc. Petition No. 126/79 it was stated that the petition was allowed on the sole ground that the provisions of S. 17 of the Land acquisition Act could not he made applicable to the case and that opportunity to file objections u/s. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act had to he given to the affected people. As regards spot inspection, it was ('untended that on 14.7.86 the case was fully heard and nothing remained to be done except the spot inspection, for which the case was fixed on 15.7.86. As regards spot inspection, it was ('untended that on 14.7.86 the case was fully heard and nothing remained to be done except the spot inspection, for which the case was fixed on 15.7.86. As the petitioners did not press for spot inspection, it was not carried out and no prejudice was caused to anyone because of this. As regards the permission to develop lands privately, it was contended that the Scheme No. 23 was divided in administrative Zone, Residential Zone, Health Zone, Shopping Centre and other Zones. As the petitioners' land fell in Administrative Zone, permission was not granted to them. Distinguishing features between petitioners' lands and other lands allowed to be developed privately were also pointed out in the return. 8. We have heard Shri S.D. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri M.L. Agrawal, N.K. Sanghi and Shri Iqbal Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Purshottam Shastri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as also Shri T.N. Singh, learned Dy. Advocate General assisted by Shri C.L. Yadav, Government Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 9. Shri Shastri, the learned counsel for the UDA has raised preliminary objections as to the delay in filing the petition as also existence of alternative remedy. He has also raised a plea of constructive res judicata. Let us deal with these preliminary objections first. As regards delay Shri Shastri submitted that the validity of the scheme was challenged after 7 years and there was no explanation for the delay. According to the learned counsel notification under S. 50(3) of the Adhiniyam was published on 10.2.1978 and a notification under S. 50(7) was issued on 12.4.1978. Even the supplementary notification was published u/s. 50(7) of the Adhiniyam on 17.6.78. According to the learned counsel virtually these notifications issued under the Adhiniyam were challenged in the year 1986 though it is said that the main challenge is to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act. Shri Shastri further submitted that S. 51 of the Adhiniyam provided for a equally efficatious remedy in the form of a revision application challenging a scheme finalised u/s. 50 of the Adhiniyam. According to the learned counsel as the petitioners have not taken recourse to this remedy, the petition should fail on the ground of any existing alternative remedy available under the Adhiniyam. According to the learned counsel as the petitioners have not taken recourse to this remedy, the petition should fail on the ground of any existing alternative remedy available under the Adhiniyam. Shri Shastri further submitted that in the earlier petition No. 126/79 the petitioners had an opportunity to challenge the scheme but they did not do so and, therefore, challenge to this scheme would be barred on the principles of constructive res judicata. Shri Sanghi on the other hand submitted that the question of delay did not arise in this case because the main challenge in the petition is to the acquisition According to Shri Sanghi while challenging the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners could show that the acquisition was not for public purpose and while doing so they could show that the presumption under S. 55 of the Adhiniyam did not apply to the case because it could only apply to a properly and validly framed and finalised scheme. On the question of alternative remedy, Shri Sanghi submitted that so far as challenge to the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act was concerned, there was no alternative remedy available and so far as the scheme is concerned, a revision could not be said to be an equally efficatious remedy. He also submitted that once a case is admitted for hearing it cannot be thrown out on the ground that an alternative remedy was available. On the question of res judicata, Shri Sanghi submitted that in the first place the return does not raise the plea and, therefore, it cannot be entertained. He further submitted that as the earlier notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were quashed, there was no occasion for the petitioners to go into the further question of the validity of the scheme. He also submitted that the non-existence of the scheme came to light during the arguments before this Court and the petitioners could not have raised it earlier because they believed that a scheme existed. The petitioners tried their best to take inspection of the relevant documents but since the record was not available to them for inspection, therefore, they could not have raised the plea earlier. The principles of constructive res judicata did not apply to the case according to Shri Sanghi. 10. The petitioners tried their best to take inspection of the relevant documents but since the record was not available to them for inspection, therefore, they could not have raised the plea earlier. The principles of constructive res judicata did not apply to the case according to Shri Sanghi. 10. Having heard the learned counsel, we have come to the conclusion that none of the preliminary objections is well founded. As the question of delay would obviously not arise in this case because the Notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were challenged in time. If a scheme is framed long ago but the land is sought to be acquired recently, it cannot be said that the petitioner challenging recent notification under the Land Acquisition Act could be thrown out on the ground of delay because the Scheme in which the land had been acquired had been framed years ago. It would be patently unjust to throwaway petitions on such grounds. As to the alternative remedy, firstly, since the petition is admitted for the final hearing such a plea cannot be raised. See Durlabh Kumar v. District Judge, Indore & Ano. ( 1973 JLJ 209 ). Moreover, there is no alternative remedy so far as the challenge to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, there is, therefore, no force in the objection that the petition cannot be entertained on this ground. So far as the question of res judicata is concerned, the plea has not been taken in the return and there is no justification for entertaining it only because it was raised at the time of arguments. Moreover, in the circumstances of the case, we cannot shut out the petitioners from raising the plea of non-existence of the scheme. The respondents have not given inspection to the petitioners of the relevant documents and, therefore, they were under the impression that some scheme exists and were only challenging the validity of such scheme. Now further having inspected the record, their plea is that no scheme exists at-all, such a plea based on the record, which was allowed to be inspected during the course of the petition itself, can be raised by the petitioners and the argument cannot be barred on the principles of constructive res judicata. 11. Let us now examine the petition on merits. Shri Sanghi submits that there is no scheme existing in the eyes of law. 11. Let us now examine the petition on merits. Shri Sanghi submits that there is no scheme existing in the eyes of law. A corporate body like UDA has to act through resolutions. The UDA has, therefore, to show firstly that a resolution was passed for preparation of a scheme. After passing of such a resolution alone, authority for issuing a notification under S. 50(2) of the Adhiniyam could be presumed. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel relied on Vice Chancellor, Utkal University & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh and others ( AIR 1954 SC 217 ). Shri Sanghi further submitted that the Notification dated 18.8.1977 was published on 23.9.1977 beyond the period of 30 days prescribed by S. 50(2) of the Adhiniyam. In support of his contention the learned counsel cited Anupam Sahakari Grow Nirman Samiti Maryadit, Raipur v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ( AIR 1989 MP 163 ). The learned counsel further submitted that it transpired after the inspection of the record that there was no scheme at-all. Relying on the decisions reported in Mohammad Shaft v. State of M.P. & Ors. ( 1989 JLJ 501 ), Trust Mai Lachhmi Sialkoti Bradari v. Chairman, Amritsar Improvement Trust and Ors. ( AIR 1963 SC 976 ), Smt. Somwail & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. ( AIR 1963 SC 151 ) and Narayan Govind Gavate etc. v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1977 SC 183 ), the learned counsel submitted that existence of a scheme is sine qua non for land acquisition for the scheme. According to the learned counsel as there was no scheme, presumption as to the public purpose could also not be there and the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act must fail. Shri Sanghi further submitted that the enquiry was also not conducted in accordance with the principle of natural justice. When spot inspection was sought by all parties and it was decided to inspect the spot, relying on some memorandum of spot inspection prepared earlier by an official, the enquiry was abruptly closed for report. According to the petitioners even the report was not sent to the State for its consideration. Shri Sanghi also submitted that the scheme should have been implemented within a period of three years and because this was not done, the scheme had lapsed. According to the petitioners even the report was not sent to the State for its consideration. Shri Sanghi also submitted that the scheme should have been implemented within a period of three years and because this was not done, the scheme had lapsed. No acquisitions could be made for a scheme which had lapsed by operation of law. Shri Shastri, the learned counsel for the UDA submitted that the law does not provide that a scheme could not be in the form of a plan, it is not necessary, according to the learned counsel that details about the specific use to which the specific land would be put, the finances for the implementation of the scheme etc. were not required to be given in the scheme. He also submitted that it could not have been said that the scheme had lapsed because implementation had started by taking initial steps within three years. According to Shri Shastri except the lands belonging to the petitioners, the entire other area had already been developed. 12. During the course of the arguments, we directed the counsel for the UDA to produce the record relating to the scheme before us. This was necessary for the purpose of deciding the objections of the petitioners regarding the existence of the scheme as well as their complaint that they were not given inspection of the documents to enable them to effectively challenge the scheme. From the record it transpired that the UDA had not framed a separate Draft Scheme but had adopted a Draft Zoning Plan (PU-4) as its scheme. No details are available in the plan as to the scheme. A letter No. 2484 dated 27.2.1978 addressed by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore to the Chief Executive Officer, UDA, Ujjain shows that even though notices were issued under the Adhiniyam stating that the scheme would be available for inspection at the Office of the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, no such scheme was sent to the Joint Director for being made available for inspection to general public. In this letter the Joint Director has clearly stated that till 27.2.1978 copy of the scheme was not made available to his office. He has requested for the copy of the scheme being sent at the earliest. In this letter the Joint Director has clearly stated that till 27.2.1978 copy of the scheme was not made available to his office. He has requested for the copy of the scheme being sent at the earliest. In response to this letter on 2.3.1978, the Chief Engineer/C.E.O., UDA wrote to the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Indore stating that plans were got prepared from the Office of the Joint Director on 14.10.1977, the plans themselves were adopted as the scheme No. 23 and as such they may be approved formally and two prints be sent to the UDA. There is no document available in the file, which could support the contention that even this plan said to have been prepared by the Joint Director's Office was adopted as Scheme No. 23. From the record it appears that notifications were issued without framing a scheme and there is no resolution or order even supporting the contention that the plans prepared by the Joint Director, which is the Zonal Plan (PW-4), was ever adopted as Scheme No. 23. No document was shown to us which would support the contention that the UDA or its administrator had at any time declared that the plan PU-4 was adopted as Scheme No. 23. 13. Apart from the crucial point of existence of Scheme No. 23 even assuming that PU-4 was adopted as Scheme No. 23, it does not solve the problem. Plan PU-4 is a Draft Zoning Plan, which does not show as to what was being proposed to be done by the UDA. Being Zonal Plan naturally, it contains provisions for different lands use allotted in the plan. It earmarked lands for parks, open space, schools, bus stand, shopping centers, administrative zone etc. It also shows existing lands use. It is impossible to understand from the Plan PU-4 as to what is the scheme proposed as Scheme No. 23 by the UDA. The plan does not show as to what constructions the UDA was planning to undertake and what was being left for the public. It also shows existing lands use. It is impossible to understand from the Plan PU-4 as to what is the scheme proposed as Scheme No. 23 by the UDA. The plan does not show as to what constructions the UDA was planning to undertake and what was being left for the public. It is not clear whether the UDA proposed in Scheme No. 23 to construct a bus stand in the portion of land earmarked for bus stand, whether it was going to construct school building in the area earmarked for schools, whether it was going to open a dispensary in the land earmarked for dispensary and whether it was going to raise a mango garden in the place earmarked for the mango garden. The very idea of publishing a scheme inviting public attention and public suggestions and objections would be defeated if such a vague plan giving out no details whatsoever is taken as a scheme prepared under the Adhiniyam. From thee record, we, therefore, find that there is no scheme worth its name prepared by the UDA and in fact Scheme No. 23 was not properly framed. It, therefore, did not exist in the eyes of law and no acquisition could be made in a non-existing scheme. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions deserve to be allowed. We have, however, to consider what relief under the circumstances, considering the time-lag in filing these petitions as well as the contention of the UDA that most of the scheme has been implemented can be given. The petitioners themselves being conscious of the fact that it would be too late in the day to ask the Court to set the clock back by getting the scheme and the notifications quashed in its entirety, have claimed the relief of declaration that the petitioners' lands in question are not affected in any manner by the Town Development Scheme No. 23 of the respondent No.4. In the circumstances of the case, we do not consider it proper to quash the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in their entirety. In the circumstances of the case, we do not consider it proper to quash the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in their entirety. Since the petitioners have come to this Court within a reasonable time after the notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were published, though after 7 years of the finalisation of the Scheme No. 23, and considering the fact that it has been demonstrated before us that Scheme No. 23 did not exist and had no foundation, we would keep the petitioners unaffected by the scheme. We, therefore, quash the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexures P.5 and P.9 to the petition) only to the extent of the lands belonging to the petitioners, viz. survey Nos. 803, 81 & 849/1/2 those covered by M.P. Nos. 1707/86 & 1846/86 holding that the Scheme No. 23 does not operate against these lands. We again make it clear that the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexures P.5 and P.9) so far as they relate to lands other than the petitioners' aforesaid lands, shall be deemed to be valid and operative and the Scheme No. 23 so far as it relates to other lands would also remain unaffected. In view of the fact that in preparation of Scheme No. 23 the UDA has acted in the most callous manner, we would impose costs of these petitions on the UDA. The costs of this petition shall be paid by the UDA only to the petitioners. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000/-.