JUDGMENT : S.D.AGARWALA. J. 1. These are two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition no 26707 of 1991 has been filed by one Vinod Kumar on 24-9-1991 challenging the notice dated 28-8-1991 issued by the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Greater NOIDA') u/s 10 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred o as 'the Act'.) The second petition has been filed by Satish Chandra and seven others on the 27th of March 1992. In this petition also, the Petitioners have challenged the notice dated 10-3-1992 issued by the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority u/s 10 of the same Act. In both these petitions, at the time of the admission stage, this Court directed that Greater NOIDA shall not demolish the constructions existed on the land in dispute in pursuance of the impugned notice. It was further directed that they shall not make any further constructions on the disputed land. 2. When the second petition was filed on 27-3-1992, it was agreed between the parties that both the petitions may be heard together and may be finally disposed of. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the petitions and learned Counsel for Greater NOIDA as well as learned Standing Counsel. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows : 3. In writ petition no. 26707 of 1991, the Petitioner has alleged that he is owner in possession of Khasra plot no. 66 area 3-17-0 bighas situate in village Gullstanpur, Tahsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad and that his name has been recorded as the bhumidhar of the plot. It has been further stated that since the plot in dispute was being used for abadi purposes and pakka constructions have been in existence since a very long time, the Petitioner had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadri, Ghaziabad on 28-12-1990 u/s 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for a declaration that as the said plot has lost its character as agricultural land, it may be declared as non-agricultural land. After necessary enquiry ultimately the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 6-4-1991 made a declaration u/s 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act declaring the land as non-agricultural on the ground that the old constructions have already existed and the land is being used for residential purpose. 4. It is further alleged that on 28th January 1991, by a notification issued u/s 3 of the Act, the Governor was pleased to constitute an Authority to be called 'Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority. This notification was published in the Gazette dated 23-2-1991. The Petitioner's plot came within the area of the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Area. On 28-8-1991, a notice was issued to the Petitioner u/s 10 of the Act asking him to remove the constructions made on the land in dispute within a period of seven days otherwise it was directed that the constructions shall be demolished by the Greater NOIDA. It is this notice dated 28-8-1991 which is the subject of challenge in the first petition. 5. Similarly, in the second petition no. 9573 of 1992, it has been stated that the Petitioners are the owners in possession of Khasra plots nos. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55 and 56 situate in village Gulistanpur, Tahsil Dadri, district Ghaziabad and that the Petitioners are the recorded bhumidhar of the aforesaid plot. It has been also stated, that these plots had also lost their character as agricultural land and they are being used for purposes of brickkiln labour quarters and for other abadi purposes and consequent), it has been averred that the Petitioners filed applications on 28-12-1990 u/s 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for a declaration that the plots had lost its character as agricultural land they be declared as non agricultural. After necessary enquiry in this case also, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ultimately by an order dated 6-4-1991 made a declaration u/s 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act declaring the land as non-agricultural on the ground that old constructions already existed and the land was being used for residential purposes. After necessary enquiry in this case also, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ultimately by an order dated 6-4-1991 made a declaration u/s 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act declaring the land as non-agricultural on the ground that old constructions already existed and the land was being used for residential purposes. After the creation of the Greater NOIDA, in this case also, notices were issued on 10-3-1992 u/s 10 of the Act for removal of the constructions made on the land in dispute within a period specified in the notice and in case the constructions were not removed, the Greater NOIDA shall demolish the constructions. In this petition, the notice dated 10-3-1992 has been impugned. 6. In both the petitions, consequently, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has challenged the notices issued u/s 10 of the Act as being wholly invalid and issued without jurisdiction. 7. The Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 under which Act the impugned notices have been issued was promulgated by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature to -provide for the constitution of an Authority for the development of certain areas in the State into industrial and urban township and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute an Industrial Development Authority for a particular area by notification. The said Authority once constituted is a body corporate. The function of the Authority is to secure the planned development of the industrial development Areas. Section 7 of the Act empowers the said Authority to sell, lease or otherwise transfer whether by auction, allotment or otherwise any land or building belonging to the Authority in the industrial development area on such terms and conditions as it may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think flit to impose. Section 8 empowers the Authority to issue directions in respect of erection of buildings. Section 9 of the Act creates a ban on erection of buildings in contravention of regulations. Section 10 gives power to the Authority to require proper maintenance of site or building. 8. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the notice u/s 12 of the Act can only be issued after the development plan of the area has been prepared and building regulations if any framed comes into existence. The alternate argument is that u/s 10 of the Act. 8. learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the notice u/s 12 of the Act can only be issued after the development plan of the area has been prepared and building regulations if any framed comes into existence. The alternate argument is that u/s 10 of the Act. the Authority has no power to demolish the constructions already in existence and hence the impugned notices are wholly illegal learned Counsel has further contended that since no proceeding for acquiring the land has been initiated in respect of the land in dispute, (he Petitioner is free to develop and raise constructions on the land in dispute and as such also the notice u/s 10 is invalid. 9. It is not disputed that no proceeding for acquisition of the land in dispute is pending under the Land Acquisition Act in regard to the land involved in both these petitions. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Greater NOIDA, it has been categorically stated that the development plan of the Greater NOIDA is ready and only clearance of Sub Regional Plan by National Capital Board is awaited. It has been further stated that the Building Regulations are pending before the Uttar Pradesh Government for approval and notification. In the supplementary affidavit dated 14-5-1992 filed by Devi Ram, Assistant Manager (Law) on behalf of the Greater NOIDA, in paragraph 3, it has been stated that the plan has already been approved by National Capital Board and the Regulations which have been prepared were examined and approved by the Greater NOIDA in the third Board meeting held on 25-10-1991 and sent to the Uttar Pradesh Government Udyog Department on 26-10-1991. In paragraph 4, it has been stated that the Regulations have been vetted by law Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh and have been found in order. The law Department has after vetting the Regulation sent it back to Udyog Department for formal notification on 13-4-1992. Thereafter Hindi translation was scrutinised by the Bhasha Vibhag and sent it back to Udyog Department. The entire regulations have been framed and it is only awaited for formal Gazette notification by the Government. The law Department has after vetting the Regulation sent it back to Udyog Department for formal notification on 13-4-1992. Thereafter Hindi translation was scrutinised by the Bhasha Vibhag and sent it back to Udyog Department. The entire regulations have been framed and it is only awaited for formal Gazette notification by the Government. In view of the various averments made in the petitions, counter affidavit and in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the Greater NOIDA, it is, therefore, clear that the necessary steps have been taken for preparing development plan, the Building Regulations have already been prepared and approved by the Government and they are awaiting formal Gezette notification It is in the light of these facts, it has to be examined as to whether the impugned notices issued to the Petitioners are bad in law or not. 11. Section 10 which is relevant for the purpose of this case is quoted below : 10. POWER TO REQUIRE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF SITE OR BUILDING : If it appears to the Authority that the condition or use of any site or building is prejudicially affecting or is likely to affect the proper planning of, or the amenities in any part of the industrial development area or the interests of the general public there, it may serve an the transferee or occupier of that site or building a notice requiring him to take such steps and within such period as may be specified in the notice and thereafter to maintain it in such manner as may be specified therein and in case such transferee or occupier fails to take such steps or to maintain it thereafter the Authority may itself take such steps or maintain it, and realize the cost incurred on it from such transferee or occupier. Section 6 of the Act clearly specifies that the object of the Authority which is created under the Act is to secure the planned development of the area so notified. Clause (2) of Section 6 further specifies the functions of the Authority, namely, to acquire land in the industrial development area, by agreement or through proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of this Act. Clause (2) of Section 6 further specifies the functions of the Authority, namely, to acquire land in the industrial development area, by agreement or through proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of this Act. to prepare a plan for the development of the industrial development area ; to demarcate and develop sites for industrial, commercial and residential purposes according to the plan and besides other functions, it has also the power to lay down the purpose for which a particular site or plot of land shall be used, namely, for industrial or commercial or residential purpose or any other specified purpose in such area. On a reading of Section 6, it is clear that the main function of the Board is to secure the planned development of area in respect of which a notification has been issued u/s 3 of the Act. Action u/s 10 of the Act quoted above can be taken by the Authority if it appears to the Authority that the conditions or the use of any site or the building is prejudicially affecting or is likely to affect -- (a) the proper planning of, (b) the amenities in any part of the industrial development area or ; (c) in the interest of the general public. The intention of enacting Section 10 is to avoid haphazard construction in any area which has been declared as an industrial development area. If after the issue of the notification, the public start making constructions in haphazard manner, it would affect the planned development of the area. It is with a view to prevent this haphazard construction, that power has been given to the Authority u/s 10 of the Act to issue necessary directions for the proper maintenance of the site or building. 12. In this Section the words "likely to affect" are significant. These words show that even though a Development Plan has not come in existence but if it is likely to affect the planned development of the area, action can be taken under this Section. It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because no development plan has been finally prepared or building regulations have not been enforced, the Authority has no jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 10 of the Act. 13. Section 10 has been enacted for the purpose of maintenance of site or building. It cannot, therefore, be said that merely because no development plan has been finally prepared or building regulations have not been enforced, the Authority has no jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 10 of the Act. 13. Section 10 has been enacted for the purpose of maintenance of site or building. It also gives power to the Authority to take necessary steps for the purpose of maintenance of the site or the building but in our opinion, this does not give the Authority the power to demolish the building already existing before its constitution. It may be that after the building regulations have been enforced, they may have power under the Regulation to demolish the buildings made in contravention of the Regulations. In the circumstances, the impugned notices directing demolition of the constructions already existing are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 14. The next question, which arises for consideration is how far an Authority can restrict the rights of a person to raise construction on his own land whose land is situate in the industrial development area, in a case where no proceedings for acquisition of the said land has been taken by the Authority. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is not disputed that the development plans have not yet been finalised and, therefore, it cannot be said that what is specific use of each portion of the area. A person owning land in area has a right to use it in a manner he likes in accordance with law. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the land belongs to the Petitioner. The Authorities have already made an order declaring the land in dispute as non agricultural u/s 143 of the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act viz for the use of the holdings for industrial or residential purposes. In the circumstances, the Petitioners have a right to use the said land for the said purposes. At the same time, since the building regulations have already been prepared and are awaiting notification by the State Government, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted only to the extent that they are free to raise the constructions but they shall be subject to the building regulations framed by the Greater NOIDA. 15. At the same time, since the building regulations have already been prepared and are awaiting notification by the State Government, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted only to the extent that they are free to raise the constructions but they shall be subject to the building regulations framed by the Greater NOIDA. 15. At the time of the hearing of these petitions, applications were made in both these petitions by M/s. Agarwal Associates (Promoters) Ltd. for being impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in the above mentioned petitions. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it has been stated that various agreements had been made and executed between the Petitioners and the promoter applicants in respect of the plots in dispute. It has been stated that the owners had agreed to transfer the rights of development over the said land to the applicant. It has been further stated that it is the applicant who alone is entitled to develop the land. Applicant has already been impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in these petitions. The learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant concedes that it wants the same relief as claimed by the Petitioners. In the application, it has been admitted that the Petitioners are owners of the property but the Petitioners have entered into agreements with the applicants for developing the land. Any dispute in regard to the agreement is beyond the purview of these petitions. We cannot go into the rights of the Petitioners and applicants in regard to the execution of the agreement amongst themselves. The operative portion of the order passed by us is subject to and without prejudice to the rights of the parties under the alleged agreement. 16. In view of the above, we quash the notices dated 28-8-1991 and 10-3-199 issued u/s 10 of the Act. We also direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to issue a notification enforcing the building regulations framed by the Greater NOIDA within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Secretary of the Department concerned in order to avoid the delay in the development of the area. The Petitioners are only permitted to develop the land in question or transfer any portion or portions of the land in question. The Petitioners are only permitted to develop the land in question or transfer any portion or portions of the land in question. Buildings shall only be constructed on the said land in accordance with the building regulations of Greater NOIDA after taking permission from it. The Greater NOIDA is directed to dispose of the applications for sanction of the constructions as expeditiously as possible after their receipt. It is further directed that the Greater NOIDA shall not demolish any construction which have already been made on the land in dispute. The Petitioners also shall not make any further constructions on the land in dispute in the petitions unless duly sanctioned, except those which are necessary for the purposes of developing the sites in question. 17. With the above directions, both the petitions are disposed of. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.