JUDGMENT : S.D. Agarwala, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows: Plot No. 8, Nasibpur Bakhtiara, Allahabad is a Nazul property. The Governor of the United Provinces on 15th August, 1941 granted a lease in favour of Begum Mehdi Hasan in respect of the said plot. Initially the lease was for a term of 30 years from 21-8-1940. It was a stipulated in the lease deed that the lessor at the request of the lessee at the end of the said term of 30 years and so on from time to time at the end of such successive term of years, that may be granted, execute to the lessee a new lease of the said premises by way of renewal for the term of thirty years provided always that such renewed terms of years as may be granted shall not, with the original terms of years, exceed in the aggregate the period of ninety years. In paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U.P. it has been averred that Smt. Begum Mehdi Hasan assigned her lease hold right to Sri Ahmad Jaffar Faruqui and Sri Sayeed Jaffar Faruqur who also subsequently transferred their rights to Smt. Mumtaj Jehan Khan w/o Sri Faiyaz Bahadur Khan on 17 6-1954. Right to hold a portion of said plot measuring 3087 square yards was again transferred by Smt. Mumtaj Jehan Khan in favour of her son Sri Namir Faiyaz Khan vide sale deed dated 10-12-1969 and later on during 1981 names of her other sons Sri Nasir Faiyaz Khan and Nadir Faiyaz Khan and Nazir Faiyaz Khan to whom gift was made were also recorded alongwith their mother. In the year 1987 the lease was renewed by the Commissioner, Allahabad in favour of the above named Smt. Mumtaz Jehan Khan, Sri Namir Faiyaz Khan and Sri Nazir Faiyaz Khan for a further period of 30 years with effect from 21-8-1970. It has been further stated that the Petitioners, Harminder Pal Singh and Smt. Jagjit Kaur Gulati are transferees of the joint lessees. It has been further stated that the Petitioners, Harminder Pal Singh and Smt. Jagjit Kaur Gulati are transferees of the joint lessees. In paragraph 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit it is admitted that the purchasers viz Petitioners are joint lease holders alongwith Sri Nazir Faiyaz Khan and have stepped into the shoes of Begum Mehdi Hasan, the original lessee subject to the same lights and restrictions and the several Covenants and stipulations as expressed in the original lease and also in the renewed lease. In view of the above it is clear that the Petitioners are co-lessees of portions of the aforesaid plot No 8 Nasibpur Bakhritara, Allahabad. On 10th March, 1989 Petitioners submitted a plan for the construction of multi stored residential complex to the Allahabad Development Authority in the prescribed form accompanied by a fee of Rs. 250/-. On 20th May, 1989 the plan which was submitted by the Petitioner was sanctioned by the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority and this fact was communicated to the Petitioners by letter of the Allahabad Development Authority dated 24th May, 1989. By means of the said letter the Petitioners were directed to deposit the entire amount towards permit fee and development charges The Petitioners were asked to deposit Rs. 250/- as permit fee, Rs. 1,30,680.25 p. towards internal development fee and Rs. 32,276.32 p. towards the external development fee In the said letter it was further clarified that in rase internal development is carried out by the Petitioners themselves then only Petitioners may deposit 1/4th of the amount of Rs. 1,30,680.25 p. which comes to Rs. 32,670.06 p or in lieu of deposit of the amount bank guarantee may be furnished as security. In pursuance of the letter dated 24th May, 1989 Petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 33.276 32 p. on 29th May, 1989 and also furnished a bank guarantee for Rs 32,670 06 p. drawn in favour of Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The Petitioners on 29th May, 1989 wrote a letter to the Allahabad Development Authority asking it to issue sanctioned plan as no counter signatures of the District Magistrate was required and full powers arc vested with the Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority. The Petitioners on 29th May, 1989 wrote a letter to the Allahabad Development Authority asking it to issue sanctioned plan as no counter signatures of the District Magistrate was required and full powers arc vested with the Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority. Since the sanctioned plan was sent to the District Magistrate, Allahabad for counter signatures and there was delay on the port of the District Magistrate in counter signing the sanctioned plan the Petitioners filed the present writ petition in this Court for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority to immediately release the sanctioned plan dated 20th May, 1989 in favour of the Petitioners. This petition has been contested on behalf of the District Magistrate, Allahabad as well as by the Vice-Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Counsel for the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority and the learned Standing Counsel for the District Magistrate, Allahabad. 4. It is not disputed that the Petitioners had filed a plan on 10-3-1989 for the construction of multi storied residential complex. It is also not disputed that this plan was sanctioned by the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority. The Petitioners were informed of the sanction by letter dated 24th May, 1989. In the last paragraph of this letter dated 24th May, 1989 it was written that plan shall be released after the counter signatures have been obtained by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. The District Magistrate did not counter sign the sanctioned plan and while the matter was pending before him another Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 was issued. The case set up on behalf of the District Magistrate is that in accordance with the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 before allowing the residential construction on the pattern of group housing scheme premium and rent should be realised on commercial rate from the lessee. His further case is that in case residential purpose is changed then the Petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs 14,47,200/- towards premium and annual rent of Rs. His further case is that in case residential purpose is changed then the Petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs 14,47,200/- towards premium and annual rent of Rs. 24,120/- is to be paid by the Petitioners On a reading of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate Allahabad it is clear that the only objection to the counter signature of the sanctioned plan is the payment of premium and the rent mentioned above in view of the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989. In the circumstances, two main questions arise for the decision in this petition viz. whether counter signature of the District Magistrate are required in terms of the lease after sanction of the plan by the Allahabad Development Authority and the second question is as to whether the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 would be applicable to the case of the Petitioners when their plan was already sanctioned on 20th May, 1989. 5. In order to consider the first question it is necessary to quote relevant terms of the lease deed dated 15th August, 1941, a photostat copy of which has been filed as Annexure SCA-3 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector Allahabad. It provides as follows;- And also will within twenty four calendar months next after the date of these presents at his expense and also to the satisfaction of the Collector for the time being of Board of Allahabad in a good substantial and workman like manner erect and complete on such parts of the said premises as are marked out on the plan here to annexed a dwelling house and out buildings to a plan and elevation to be approved by such Collector/Board which dwelling house and out buildings shall be of the value of Rs. 5000/- at least and also that the part of the external elevation or plan of such dwelling-house and out-buildings shall at any time be altered or varied from the original elevation or plan thereof without the written consent of such Collector/Board and no other building shall be erected on the said premises without the like consent.... 5000/- at least and also that the part of the external elevation or plan of such dwelling-house and out-buildings shall at any time be altered or varied from the original elevation or plan thereof without the written consent of such Collector/Board and no other building shall be erected on the said premises without the like consent.... And also will not at any time carry on or permit to be carried on upon the said premises any trade or business whatsover or use the same for any other purpose than as a private dwelling without the consent in writing of such Collector/Board. 6. From the above term of the lease deed it is clear that dwelling house and out-buildings could only be made in the lease hold plot after approval given by the Collector or the Board. It further provides that external elevation of the plan of such dwelling house and out-buildings could only be altered or varied from the original elevation or plan thereof with the written consent of the Collector or the Board and no other building shall be erected on the said premises without the like consent. It is, therefore, clear that under the lease deed buildings could be constructed on the lease hold land with the written consent of either the Collector or the Board. 7. When the lease deed was executed in 1941 Allahabad was governed by the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, hereinafter referred to as the Municipalities Act. 'Board' has been defined u/s 2(1) of the Municipalities Act and reads as follows: 'Board' means a municipal board and shall include in any case where a power is expressed as being conferred or a duty as being imposed on a board, a committee appointed by a board and any member, officer or servant of a board authorised or required by or under this Act to exercise the power or perform the duty. 8. It is consequently apparent that the word 'Board' which was used in the lease deed referred to the Board as constituted under the Municipalities Act, 1916. The permission of the Collector or the Board was considered mandatory as it is the Board acting udder the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act which could sanction erection of the building u/s 180 of the Municipalities Act. 9. The permission of the Collector or the Board was considered mandatory as it is the Board acting udder the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act which could sanction erection of the building u/s 180 of the Municipalities Act. 9. The U.P. Legislature in the year 195') enacted U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act No. II of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam to provide for the establishment of the Nagar Mahapalikas in certain cities with a view to ensure better municipal government of the said cities. Initially this act was made applicable only to KAVAL towns. Allahabad being one of the KAVAL towns the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam became applicable to Allahabad. By Section 581 of the Adhiniyam, U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 stood repealed in so far as it was applicable to any area included in the city. By virtue of this section consequently U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 became applicable to the city of Allahabad and the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 stood repealed 10. u/s 4 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, Nagar Mahapalika was created for each city. This was a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. It is, therefore, clear that in view of the repeal of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 by U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 the word 'Board' would by operation of law be substituted by the word 'Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad.' 11. Chapter XIII of the Adhiniyam dealt with the building regulations. Sections 316 to 329 deals with the permission to be obtained from the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari before constructing any building. It was mandatory for any person to make any repair, alteration in any building or to erect any building to give notice to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and it was open to the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari to grant or refuse to grant permission to execute the said work. 12. In the year 1973 U.P. Legislature enacted U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act', to provide for the development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to the plan and for matters ancillary thereto. In the object of the reasons for enacting this Act it was specifically stated as follows: In the developing areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh the problems of town planning and urban development need to be tackled resolutely. In the object of the reasons for enacting this Act it was specifically stated as follows: In the developing areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh the problems of town planning and urban development need to be tackled resolutely. The existing local bodies and other authorities in spite of their best efforts have not been able to cope with these problems to the desired extent. In order to bring about improvement in this situation, the State Government considered it advisable that in such developing areas, Development Authority be established. As the State Government was of the view that the urban development and planning work in the State had already been delayed it was felt necessary to provide for early establishment of such Authorities.' Section 59 of 1973 Act repealed Sections 316 to Section 329 of the Adhiniyam. The result was that in case a construction was sought to be made on the land situated in the city which was governed by the provisions of 1973 Act, he had to take recourse to the provisions of 1973 Act. 13. 1973 Act was enforced in Allahabad on August 19, 1974 and consequent with effect from 19th August, 1974, in case permission was required for erection of any building then permission has to be obtained under the provisions of 1973 Act. Chapter V of 1973 Act deals with the development of lands It provides that after the declaration of any area as development area u/s 3 of the Act no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out or continued in that area by any parson or body (including a department of Government) unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Vice Chairman in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 14. In the circumstances, in case any person wanted to erect any building in the city of Allahabad he has to take permission in writing of the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority before he could raise constructions. The consequential effect of this provision read alongwith the lease deed of 1941 is that the word 'Board' by operation of law would be deemed to have been substituted by 'Nagar Mahapalika' and after coming into force of 1973 Act it is to be read as 'Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority'. 15. The consequential effect of this provision read alongwith the lease deed of 1941 is that the word 'Board' by operation of law would be deemed to have been substituted by 'Nagar Mahapalika' and after coming into force of 1973 Act it is to be read as 'Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority'. 15. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in accordance with the terms of the lease deed quoted above in case the lessee wanted to construct any building on land leased out to him then by operation of law permission can be granted either by the Collector or by the Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority as the 'word 'Board' will be deemed to be substituted by the word 'Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority'. Sanction to erect a building by one would be a valid sanction on the lease hold land. In a case where the Vice Chairman Allahabad Development Authority grants permission it is no further necessary that the said permission should be counter signed by the Collector In the circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that under the terms of the lease deed no counter signature of the District Magistrate is required for the sanction of a plan on the land in dispute for erection of a building. 16. It is not disputed that the Petitioner had submitted a plan for the construction of multistoried residential complex which was sanctioned on 20th May, 1989. According to this plan 24 flats are to be constructed which are to be used for residential purposes. In paragraph 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been submitted that the plan for the construction of multistoried residential complex had been submitted with an intention that after the construction of the flats they will sell to other persons Petitioner filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit. Paragraph 9 is the reply of paragraph 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit. In the said paragraph it has not been denied that the Petitioner will be selling the said flats proposed to be constructed after construction. 17. On 22-1-87 Government issued an order which has been attached as Annexure 12' to the writ petition in which Government had taken a policy decision that on Nazul land Government will have no objection if multistoried residential complex is constructed. 17. On 22-1-87 Government issued an order which has been attached as Annexure 12' to the writ petition in which Government had taken a policy decision that on Nazul land Government will have no objection if multistoried residential complex is constructed. In the said Government Order Government also considered the effect of the transfer of the said flats in the multistoried complex and it was decided that the ultimate effect would only be that the liability for the payment of rent will stand divided between the flats holders proportionately. In view of the Government Order dated 22-1-1987 consequently, the plan submitted by the Petitioner for the construction of multistoried residential complex was not in any manner contrary to the policy of the State Government. In view of this policy since the flats in the multistoried complex would be used for dwelling purposes, it cannot be said that if such a complex is constructed and the flats are sold then lessee would be deemed to be carrying on trade or business over the said land. Clause 8 of the lease deed which is relevant for this purpose reads as follows- And also will not at any time carry on or permit to be carried on upon the said premises any trade or business whatsoever or use the same for any other purpose than as a private dwelling without the consent in writing of such Collector/Board. The use of the word 'upon' is significant. The transactions of sale of flats which are to be utilised as dwelling units, cannot amount to carrying on trade or business upon the land specifically when the flats are intended to be utilised as dwelling units. The lessee's right to effect assignment without prior permission stands recognised under the lease deed. The lease deed only provides that upon every assignment of the said premises or any part thereof or within one calendar month thereafter deliver a notice of such assignment to such Collector/Board setting forth the names and description of the parties to such assignment and the particulars and effect thereof. His absolute right of ownership in the building erected on the leased land also stands recognised. The lessee is, therefore, free to deal with the superstructure raised on the demised land in any manner he likes so long as it is utilized for dwelling/residential purposes. 18. His absolute right of ownership in the building erected on the leased land also stands recognised. The lessee is, therefore, free to deal with the superstructure raised on the demised land in any manner he likes so long as it is utilized for dwelling/residential purposes. 18. The Allahabad Development Authority vide its letter dated 20-7-1989 (Annexure 4' to the petition) requested the Collector, Allahabad to countersign the map and return the map thereafter. This request was repeated in the letter dated 26-9-1989. Annexure 6' to the petition. A perusal of the letter dated 28-2-1990, Annexure 8' to the petition, sent by the Allahabad Development Authority clearly indicates that the map had been sanctioned in accordance with the Government order dated 22-1-1987. In its letter dated 6-7-1990, Anuexure 9' to the petition, the Allahabad Development Authority again requested the Collector to countersign the map and return the same. Since the Stale Government had already taken a decision in the year 1987 by order dated 22-1-1987, that it had no objection for raising of multistoried building in Nazul land leased out for residential purposes, there was no justification for the Allahabad Development Authority to insist upon the counter signature of the Collector of Allahabad on the map in question before releasing the same in favour of the Petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State an objection has been taken to the effect that the Vice Chairman of the Allahabad Development Authority has no right to sanction the map in question without permission of the Collector and it has further been asserted that the jurisdiction to sanction the map in question vests in Collector. In view of our conclusion referred to hereinbefore, both these objections appears to be totally misconceived and baseless, taking into consideration the terms of the lease deed and the policy of the State Government contained in the Govt. Order dated 22-1-1987 copies of which have been addressed to all the Collectors of U.P. and copies whereof have been also endorsed to all the Secretaries of the Development Authorities. 19. In the circumstances mentioned above even though the Petitioner's intention is to raise multistoried residential complex on the land in question, it cannot be said that the counter signature of the District Magistrate was required for the sanction of the plan on the land in dispute. 20. 19. In the circumstances mentioned above even though the Petitioner's intention is to raise multistoried residential complex on the land in question, it cannot be said that the counter signature of the District Magistrate was required for the sanction of the plan on the land in dispute. 20. In regard to the second question in paragraph 27 of the petition it has been alleged that the Petitioners are governed by the Government Order dated 22nd January, 1987 and they have completed necessary formalities in accordance with the said Government Order and had also made necessary deposits demanded by the Allahabad Development Authority The plan was sanctioned on 20th May, 1989 and therefore, it has been further stated in this paragraph that the provisions of the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 are not applicable to the Petitioners. 21. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in paragraph 14 the case set up is that the permission for the Group Housing Scheme on Nazul plots could only be sanctioned in accordance with the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 by virtue of which the total amount to which Petitioner would pay would be Rs. 14,47,200/- towards the premium and further the Petitioner would have to pay annual rent of Rs 24,120/-. In the entire counter affidavit the only pica taken on behalf of the Collector why he has not countersigned the sanctioned plan is that the Petitioners have to deposit above mentioned amount as per Government Order dated 10th November, 1989. In these circumstances the question that arises for consideration is as to whether Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 is applicable to the Petitioner or not In the counter affidavit it has not been denied that the Petitioners have made deposits as per requirements of the Government Order dated 22nd January, 1987 22. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 is not retrospective. The plan having been sanctioned on 20th May, 1989 the onerous conditions, laid down in the Government Order dated 10th November, 198) cannot be made applicable to the case of the Petitioners. A cardinal principle of construction is that every statute is prima facie prospective unless is is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. 23. In Amireddi Rajagopala Rao and Others Vs. A cardinal principle of construction is that every statute is prima facie prospective unless is is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. 23. In Amireddi Rajagopala Rao and Others Vs. Amireddi Sitharamamma and Others, AIR 1965 SC 1970 , it has been held as follows: It is a well recognised rule that a statute should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect vested rights, and such a construction should never be adopted if the words are open to another construction. See Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn. (1963) p. 397. 24. The above principle also applies to the case of the Government Orders. The Government Orders are normally prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation In the instant case we have gone through the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 We do not find any paragraph in this Order from which it can be inferred that the intention of passing the Government Order was to make it retrospective In the circumstances the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 cannot be made applicable to the case of the Petitioners when the plan was duly sanctiond on 20th May, 1989. and the Collector himself delayed the release of the plan. When the plan was sanctioned on 20th May, 1989, the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989 was not in existence. In case the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989, is made applicable to the plan which had already been sanctioned earlier irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the person in whose favour plan has been sanctioned. This is not the intention of the Government Older dated 10th November, 1989. In the circumstances, we accept the submission of the Petitioner that the Government Order dated 10th November, 1989, is not retrospective and it cannot apply to the case of the Petitioner. 25. In the result the petition is allowed. The Vice Chairman, Allahabad Development Authority and the District Magistrate, Allahabad are directed to release the sanctioned plan to the Petitioner dated 20th May, 1989 within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. 26. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.