JUDGMENT 1. - If a statute directs a thing to be done in certain way, that thing shall not, even if there be no negative words, be done in any other way." (Echoed as back as in the year 1876 in Ex parte Stephens- (1876) 3 Ch. D. 659)."In other words, it can be safely re-sounded that a body, which is creature of statute, must act either in accordance with the statute which created it or must act not at all. 2. Law has reached its finest stages and there must not be any attempt reverse the gear. Not only equality, as said in E.P. Royappal ( AIR 1974 SC 555 at page 583- para 85), but also, from a positivistic point of view, "rule of law" is antithetic to "arbitrariness", the latter belongs to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. The great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found. 3. A notification No. F. 6(15) No. VI. A/11/87, dated January 6, 1988 was published by the Government of the State of Rajasthan in Urban Development & Housing Department, in Part-6 (Kha) of the Rajasthan Gazette, dated July 7,1988, stating therein that it appeared to the State Government that buildings and land situated in the area specified in the notification were needed or were likely to be needed for public purpose, i.e., by the Jaipur Development Authority, for the discharge of its functions and execution of its development programme. This notification was published in pursuance of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter, "the Acquisition Act"). By another notification dated July 28, 1989, published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary), dated July 31, 1989, the State Government published declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act to the effect that the lands described in details in the notification, it appeared to the State Government, were needed for public purpose, i.e., by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), for the discharge of its functions and its development programmes. This declaration was made after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, City Development Projects, Jaipur, made under section 5-A of the Acquisition Act. 4. This declaration was made after considering the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, City Development Projects, Jaipur, made under section 5-A of the Acquisition Act. 4. The lands sought to be acquired are situated in Villages Jhotwara, Govindpura, Gokulpura, Chak Peethawas, Panchiawalla, Lawas alias Meenawala, Vishnawala, Beer Khatipura, Girdharipura, Heerapura, Lalarpura, Dhadwas and Gajsinghpura of Tehsil-Jaipur (District - Jaipur) and in Villages Nandkishorepura alias Maniawas, Chak Ganpatpura No. 1, Chak Ganpatpura No. 2, Asarpura, Mangiawas, Badarwas, Manpur Dewari alias Galiawas, Balrampura alias Khejron-ka-Bas and Kalyanpura of Tehsil-Sanganer (District - Jaipur). The total area of the lands of these villages sought to be acquired was notified to be 10, 721 bighas 17 biswas. 5. All these writ petitions have been filed challenging the legality and validity of the acquisition-proceedings relating to lands situated in various villages, on several grounds. It is necessary to specify at one place the various grounds taken by various petitioners on the basis of which, the acquisition proceedings have been challenged by them. While most of the grounds of attack are common, some of the petitioners have taken some special grounds applicable to their own individual cases. The various grounds taken are extracted below:- (1) Neither the area has been declared as "development area" under Section 29 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, nor any project or scheme has been published under section 39(4) and (5) of the Act and as such, the proposed acquisition of land for the purpose of JDA is illegal and without any authority of law. (2) Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme of the JDA is a haphazard and vague scheme. The scheme was prepared without following the procedure prescribed in Sections 38 & 39 of the Act. In the absence of the scheme being sanctioned, no acquisition proceedings of the lands could legally be initiated. (3) Master-Plan of the Jaipur urban area was prepared under Urban Improvement Act in the year 1976 and the same is still in force in the said area by virtue of Section 27 of the Act. It has neither been modified nor reviewed. In the Master-Plan, the "green-belt" is shown in Zone-J - Green Belt Zone/District. The green belt area shown in the Master Plan cannot legally be made a subject-matter of acquisition and land use cannot be made inconsistent with and contrary to the land-use specified in the Master-Plan. It has neither been modified nor reviewed. In the Master-Plan, the "green-belt" is shown in Zone-J - Green Belt Zone/District. The green belt area shown in the Master Plan cannot legally be made a subject-matter of acquisition and land use cannot be made inconsistent with and contrary to the land-use specified in the Master-Plan. (4) JDA and the State Government have not acquired "nurseries" elsewhere. By acquiring even nursuries, hostile discrimination is being practised as against some of the petitioners. (5) Publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act in the local newspaper had been made earlier to its publication in the Official Gazette and no public notice of the substance of the notification was given at convenient places in the localities and as such acquisition cannot be proceeded further. (6) Declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act had been published in the Official Gazette after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the said Act and as such, the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. (7) The public purpose mentioned in the notification under section 4(1) and in the declaration under section 6 of the Acquisition Act is too vague and is no public purpose at all. (8) The petitioners had submitted objections under section 5-A of the Acquisition Act, but, no opportunity of hearing was ever offered to them, nor were their objections considered or even delat with in the alleged report, submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer, to the State Government. The State Government, without application of mind, published the declaration under section 6 of the Acquisition Act. (9) In the notification under section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, lands comprised in various khasra numbers were sought to be acquired, but, in the declaration under section 6, lands comprised in several khasra numbers were left out in a very arbitrary and discriminatory manner. (10) Respondent No. 2 had not been authorised by the State.Government to conduct and carry on the acquisition proceedings, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings held and conducted by him are unauthorised and without jurisdiction. (11) Respondents are violating the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. (10) Respondent No. 2 had not been authorised by the State.Government to conduct and carry on the acquisition proceedings, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings held and conducted by him are unauthorised and without jurisdiction. (11) Respondents are violating the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The above are the main grounds of attack to the acquisition which have been raised by different petitioners in the writ petitions, apart from some other minor and incidental grounds. 7. Before dealing with these grounds on merits, the case of the respondents in their reply filed in the writ petitions may first be set forth. The combined version of the respondents is that the acquisition is being made in a planned manner. It has been done after having the expert advice from the members of the JDA. The JDA is composed of members drawn from all sections of the society and from various disciplines. Decisions for establishing colonies and developing areas - whether residential, industrial and/or commercial purposes, are taken after due deliberations and expert advice. 8. Land-use of the area of the villages in question has been changed by the State of Rajasthan by its order dated 26th Aug., 1989, and the land has been declared urbanisable. As to the green-belt area shown in the master-plan, it has been submitted that it is an incorrect inference that the zone which has been shown as green-belt would be kept free from constructions. All that it means is that the green-belts have to be created by growing trees, creating parks and orchards etc. The JDA does take care of all these things while sanctioning a scheme even for residential colonies. Requirements of forestry, cultivation, nurseries, orchards etc. including the dairy, would be kept in view while finally developing the acquired lands into residential colonies, which would be known as Prithvi Raj Nagar colony. The experts always keep in view the need of further colony and also at the same time, the various laws pertaining to protection of environment. 9. Notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7th July, 1988, Public Notice was given publicity by affixing a copy of the notification on 5th Aug., 1988, at Tehsil headquarters. 9. Notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7th July, 1988, Public Notice was given publicity by affixing a copy of the notification on 5th Aug., 1988, at Tehsil headquarters. A wide publicity had been made of the notification under section 4, and it was because of that a large number of persons filed their objections against the proposed acquisition. It is stated that the purpose of the notification is to make the people know that the Government is intending to acquire certain lands as mentioned the notification. If such a knowledge comes by one source or the other to the petitioners and others, no grievance can be made that some notification might not have been made technically and precisely in the manner in which it is provided in law unless the petitioners showed prejudice. 10. Before the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act") was enacted and brought into force,there was in force the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act of 1959"), having its extent throughout the whole of the State of Rajasthan. Before the Act came into force, the Government of Rajasthan in Town Planning Department had, by notification No. F.3/123/TP/63, dated 7th Oct., 1964, notified under the Act of 1959 that a civic survey shall be carried out and a master-plan shall be prepared by the Chief Town Planner and Architectural Adviser, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, for "the urban area" of Jaipur which would include as many as 125 revenue villages mentioned therein. Later on, by notification dated 9th Oct., 1972 and in partial modification of the notification dated 7th Oct., 1964, it was declared that urban area of Jaipur would include 131 revenue villages mentioned therein and Jaipur City. An Advisory Council was also constituted for the purpose of advising the Chief Town Planner and Architectural Advisor for preparation of the master-plan. By notification dated 4th June, 1976, the Government of Rajasthan gave notice that the master-plan prepared in respect of urban area of Jaipur has been approved by the State Government. Thus, a master-plan in respect of urban area of Jaipur was prepared and had been approved by the State Government under the Act of 1959 and it was for the period 1971-91. 11. Thus, a master-plan in respect of urban area of Jaipur was prepared and had been approved by the State Government under the Act of 1959 and it was for the period 1971-91. 11. Whereas, Jaipur City and areas contiguous to it were being progressively developed and populated, and the necessity was being increasingly felt for forming these areas into Jaipur Region and for setting up of an Authority for the purpose of planning, co-ordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of these areas, in which several Government departments, local authorities and other organisations were then engaged within their own jurisdiction, to provide also that such authority be enabled either itself or through other authority to formulate and execute plans, projects and schemes and for the development of Jaipur Region, so that, housing, community facilities, civic ameneties and other infra-structure were properly created for the population of Jaipur Region in the perspective of 2001 AD of thereafter including the intermediate stages, and to provide for matters connected with the purpose aforesaid, the Rajasthan State Legislature enacted the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, as its Act No. 25 of 1982. It received the assent of the President of India on 12th day of October, 1982. 12. By "Jaipur Region" is meant the areas in the limits of the city, towns and villages specified in Schedule-I, appended to the Act. Schedule-I goes to show that the City of Jaipur, towns of Sanganer, Amer, Bagru, Chomu and Bassi and various villages in Tehsils Jaipur, Amer, Jamwa Ramgarh and Bassi as specified in the Schedule were included in the Jaipur Region. The main object of the JDA is to secure the integrated development of the Jaipur and for that purpose, its functions are enumerated in Section 16 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides for carrying out of a civil survey and preparation of a master-plan for Jaipur Region. Section 22 deals with preparation of a Zonal Development Plan for each one of the zones into which the Jaipur Region may be divided. Section 23 provides for procedure to be followed in the preparation and sanction of plans, section 24 for the date of coming into operation of the master-plan, section 25 for its subsequent modification and section 26 for its implementation. Section 27 of the Act is as follows : "27. Section 23 provides for procedure to be followed in the preparation and sanction of plans, section 24 for the date of coming into operation of the master-plan, section 25 for its subsequent modification and section 26 for its implementation. Section 27 of the Act is as follows : "27. Plans prepared prior to this Act demand to have been prepared under this Act. Any Master Plan or a Zonal Plan prepared under the provisions of any other law in force prior to the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been prepared under the provisions of this Act, to which the provisions of foregoing sections relating to the sanction, modification and operation of a Master Plan/Master Development Plan shall mutatis mutandis apply : Provided that any Master Plan or Zonal Plan sanctioned for the urban area of Jaipur under any other provisions of law shall cease to operate as soon as a plan is sanctioned under the provisions of the Act." 13. Upon the coming into force of the Act, by virtue of its section 101, the urban area of Jaipur ceased to vest in the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur and the Trust functioning in the area covered by the urban area of Jaipur, immediately before the constitution of the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.) for the Jaipur Region under the Act, stood dissolved. As sections 3 to 7 of the Act of 1959 dealt with preparation of master plan for any urban area, its contents, procedure to be followed in its preparation; its approval by the State Government its publication and its coming into operation, similarly Chapter V of the Act dealt with these matters. The Master Development Plan under the Act was to define precisely the quality of life that a citizen of Jaipur region could desirably be expected to lead in (i) medium range perspective of the year 1991 A.D., (ii) long term perspective of the year 2001 A.D. and thereafter, and (iii) such other intermediate stages, as the State Government may direct, balanced and time-targeted development to subserve the needs of the growing city of Jaipur and other areas of Jaipur Region, network of public utilities, civil amenities, community facilities, communications and transport, the projects or schemes for conservation and development of natural resources and such other matters as are likely to have a bearing on the integrated development of the Jaipur Region. 14. 14. Did the Jaipur Development Authority, which was constituted under the Act ten years back, for planning the proper, orderly and rapid development of the Jaipur Region-both from medium range perspective of the year 1991 AD and long term perspective of the year 2001 AD, has prepared a Master Development Plan itself under the Act for Jaipur Region. The answer lamentably, in bold and capital letters, is "NO". The period of medium range perspective upto the year 1991 A.D., has already expired without a Master Plan for Jaipur Region. J.D.A., therefore, takes shelter under section 27 and 101 (1) (f) of the Act. While Section 27 has already been extracted above, section 101 (1) (f)of the Act reads as under: "Section 101 (1) (f)-" all plans, schemes for the development or improvement of any area declared as the urban area of Jaipur and prepared under the said Act, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been prepared under this Act and any such plan or scheme which was in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force so long as it is not otherwise dealt with under this Act." 15. Let, therefore, the Master Plan as approved by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 6(3) of the Act of 1959 for Jaipur urban area for the period 1971-91 be referred to. Jaipur Urban Area has been divided into nine Planning Zones (referred to as Planning Districts), for the purposes of its improvement and future development. The nine Planning Districts alongwith the gross area encompassed by each are listed in table 4 as below : A. Walled City District 3850 Acres Approx. B. Bani Park District 2700 Acres Approx. C. Ashok Nagar-Tilak Nagar District 3300 Acres Approx. D. Gandhi Nagar District 3050 Acres Approx. E. Jhalana District 5600 Acres Approx. F. Sanganer District 5200 Acres Approx. G. Civil Lines District 8180 Acres Approx. H. Jhotwara District 6470 Acres Approx. Urbanisable Area 38400 Acres Approx. I. Green belt District 57,900 Acres Approx. Notified Urban Area 96,300 Acress Approx i.e. 385 Sq.Kms. Approx. "TABLE-4 PLANNING DISTRICTS-JAIPUR-1991Green Belt district represents the peripheral area around the urbanizable limits. The Green Belt district shall cover all the peripheral areas between the urbanisable limits of 1991 and Jaipur Urban Area as notified cinder the Act of 1959 covering 132 revenue villages. Notified Urban Area 96,300 Acress Approx i.e. 385 Sq.Kms. Approx. "TABLE-4 PLANNING DISTRICTS-JAIPUR-1991Green Belt district represents the peripheral area around the urbanizable limits. The Green Belt district shall cover all the peripheral areas between the urbanisable limits of 1991 and Jaipur Urban Area as notified cinder the Act of 1959 covering 132 revenue villages. Selected rural settlements in this area shall be developed as "urban villages" to strengthen the economy of the rural population living in this District. Amber town towards the north and Kanakpura-Bindaika township towards the west shall form part of the Green Belt District. Separate development plans shall however be prepared indicating the future urban area of Amber and the new industrial township. Separate land use plans for these two settlements shall also be prepared as a follow up action of the Master Plan. 16. Tonk Road being the western boundry, all lands immediately west of it have been reserved for nurseries, orchards, poultries etc., so that smoke emanating from the industrial plants, likely to be established further west of it may not create any problem for the aircrafts for landing and take off. 17. Selected village lying within the peripheral Central Belt outside the urbanisable area shall have to be developed to strengthen the rural economy. These proposals shall envisage same degree of control on the use of land in the rural areas. In the absence of any restrictions, people are likely to build in the rural areas in an indiscriminate manner which would not only spoil the rural countryside but may also lead to haphazard and sub-standard urban sprawl outside the urbansiable area. This shall defeat the whole objective of compact and organised urban development. Selected settlements shall therefore be developed as "urban village" and the desired facilities developed therein to provide vast opportunities in the rural areas. Permissible uses within the peripheral control belt may be forestry, cultivation, nurseries, orchards dairy, poultry etc. A milch cattle colony may also be developed. Its location shall be governed by the milk feeding area, cattle population and the supply of milch cattle. This and other rural oriented economic activities shall help to reduce migration and stabilise rural economy. Extract from summary of the Plan18. Notified urban area of Jaipur covering about 385 Sq. Kms. shall have three urban centres-Jaipur proper, Amber towards the north and Kanakpura-Bindayka Industrial Township towards the west. This and other rural oriented economic activities shall help to reduce migration and stabilise rural economy. Extract from summary of the Plan18. Notified urban area of Jaipur covering about 385 Sq. Kms. shall have three urban centres-Jaipur proper, Amber towards the north and Kanakpura-Bindayka Industrial Township towards the west. The lands in between and around these three urban contres shall constitute the peripheral control belt or the green belt. The development programme would thus be in three district ways i.e. development of Jaipur Urbanizable Area, the development of two smaller urban centres and the development of Rural Settlements within the peripheral belt. While the new township towards the west shall be developed primarily for large-scale heavy industries. Amber towards the north shall mainly be a tourist resort town. These centres shall be developed on the Planning District concept with Jaipur providing almost all the city level facilities. Some settlements within the peripheral control belt shall be identified to be developed as "urban villages". Detailed plans shall be prepared for this development to provide adequate work opportunities for the rural population and to strengthen rural economy.19. Three drawings have been included in this document to illustrate the policies and principles of the Master Plan. Generalised Existing Land Use 1971 shows the distribution of various economic activities in Jaipur on the basis of the surveys carried out during that year. Land Use Plan, 1991 indicates, in special dimension, the distribution of various urban functions in relation to the major transportation network as visualised for the horizon year. The third drawing titled "Urban Area 1991 and Planning Zones/Districts" indicates the Notified Urban Area as per Rajasthan Improvement Act, 1959 covering 131 revenue villages and Jaipur City, as well as the urbanizable limits of Jaipur for the horizon year. It also shows the limits of the various Planning Zones or Districts into which the Notified Urban Area has been divided."20. Be it noted that while under the Act of 1959, the concept was that of "urban area", under the Act, it is that of Jaipur Region as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act. Jaipur Region consists of the Jaipur City, towns of Sanganer, Amber, Bagru, Chomu and Bassi and as many as total number of 336 villages in tehsils Jaipur, Amer, Jamwa Ramgarh, Bassi and Chaksu as specified in Schedule-I to the Act.21. Jaipur Region consists of the Jaipur City, towns of Sanganer, Amber, Bagru, Chomu and Bassi and as many as total number of 336 villages in tehsils Jaipur, Amer, Jamwa Ramgarh, Bassi and Chaksu as specified in Schedule-I to the Act.21. Section 29 of the Act provides that as soon as may be after a plan comes into operation as provided in section 24, the Authority may, by notification in the official gazette, delare any area in Jaipur Region to be a development area for the purposes of the Act.22. Now what had precisely been done by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur under the Act of 1959 and by the Jaipur Development Authority under the Act may be summarised as under:- (1) By notification dated 9th October, 1972 and in partial modification of notification dated 7th October, 1964, it was declared that urban area of Jaipur will include 131 revenue villages mentioned therein and Jaipur City. (2) A Master Plan in respect of urban area of Jaipur had been prepared and approved by the State Government on June 4,1976 under the Act of 1959 for the period 1971-91. By virtue of sections 27 and 101 (1) (f) of the Act, the above Master Plan prepared and approved under the Act of 1959 for the urban area of Jaipur became the Master Development Plan for the Jaipur Region under the Act. (3) In exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Act, the Jaipur Development Authority declared the following as "Development Areas" in Jaipur Region with immediate effect by a notification No.F.7(215)LA/Plg/JDA/82/613 dated October 25,1983: (i) All areas falling within the urbanisable limits notified in the Jaipur Master Plan, as well as strips of 300 metres width beyond the proposed outer ring road of Jaipur, which has been shown as forming the urbanisable limits of Jaipur city. (ii) Strips of land measuring 300 ft. wide, from the road boundry, on both sides of all National Highways within the Jaipur Region. (ii) Strips of land measuring 300 ft. wide, from the road boundry, on both sides of all National Highways within the Jaipur Region. (4) A notification dated July 3, 1984 was issued by the Authority in pursuance of Section 39(1) of the Act stating as under : "whereas keeping in view the necessity of land for future extension of Jaipur city and planned development, it was proposed to make a project for utilising the land under the scheme for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, in pursuance of section 39 (1) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, by its notification dated July 3, 1984, declared of its resolution to make a project in the development areas in accordance with the provisions contained in section 38 of the Act. This declaration was published as required by the provisions of section 39 (2) of the Act. It was declared that the approximate area of the land which would be acquired under this scheme would be 9000 bighas or 2250 hectares. This area was located on both sides of Ajmer Road ahead of village Heerapura and was bounded as under: East-Western bye-pass of the Master-Plan. West-Proposed Railway bye-pass. North-Kalwar Road. South-Proposed Railway bye-pass joining Sanganer-Sodhala roads. It was also notified that lands of villages Govindpura, Vas, Jhotwara, Nawapur alias Meenawala, Kishanwala, Panchiya Ki Nangal alias Panchiyawala, Lalarpura, Girdharipura and Badarwas. Dhauwas, Heerapura and Govindpura in Tehsil Jaipur and of villages Chak Canpatpura alias Govindpura, Nand Kishorepura alias Maniyawals, Mangiawas, Chak Ganpatpura, Manpur Devri alias Goliawas, Balrampura and Kalyanpura in Tehsil Sanganer will be acquired for the Scheme." (5) It was also notified that in pursuance of section 39(3) of the Act, for planned development of Jaipur city, a multi-purpose scheme under the name of "Prithvi Raj Nagar" for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional purposes has been prepared by the J.D.A. The draft of this scheme with plan thereof was also published and it was informed that the same was available for perusal and inspection in the office of the Director (Planning) of the J.D.A. Objections and suggestions on the subject were invited by the Secretary of the J.D.A. within ten days of the publication of this information. (6) It appears that Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma, then an M.L.A. and now Minister for Urban Development and Housing wrote letters dated 18.7.86 to the Chief Minister, Minister for Urban Development and the Development Commissioner, J.D.A. enquiring whether the area of land where Prithvi Raj Nagar was proposed to be established and developed had been declared as "Development Area" or not. The Secretary of J.D.A. Shri Har Prasad Agarwal by his letter dated August 6, 1986 (Annex. 5) informed to Shri Bhanwar Lal, M.L.A. that the area had not so far then been declared as "Development Area" and as such further action on the said scheme has been deferred or postponed. (7) Then the impugned notification dated January 6, 1988 under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in Rajasthan Gazette dated July 7, 1988 followed by declaration under section 6 of the said Act dated July 28, 1989 published on July 31, 1989. (8) During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Jaipur Development Authority issued a notification dated October 31, 1991 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary on November 4, 1991 under section 29 of the Act and declared the following areas as "Development Area" namely:- District Tehsil Names of villages Jaipur Jaipur Jhotwara, Govindpura, Gokulpura, Chak Peethawas, Panchwala, Bawas alias Meenawala, Vishrnawala, Beer Khatipura, Girdharipura, Heerapura, Lalarpura, Choohawas. Jaipur Sanganer Nandkishorepura alias Mangiawas, Chak Ganpatpura No. 1, Chak Ganpatpura No. 2, Asarpura, Mangiawas, Badarwas, Manpur Devri alias Goliawas, Asirampura alias Khejra Ka Bas and Kalyanpura. 23. The first question that calls for determination is whether until and unless an area is declared as a "development area" under section 29 of the Act and a project and scheme is made for acquisition, development, reservation and sale or leasing of land interalia for housing development, development of markets, shopping centres, commercial complexes or industrial purposes under and in accordance with sections 38 and 39 of the Act by the J.D.A., the State Government could not acquire the lands involved in these writ petitions under Section 45 of the Act.24. In Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077 , facts were that on January 1961, the Government of Bihar issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 proposing to acquire an area of 407.85 acres of land in the city of Patna at the expense of the Patna Improvement Trust for a public purpose viz., for development of residential neighbourhood, to provide for housing facilities for various income groups and to facilitate the planned growth of the city of Patna. By another similar notification of the same date the State of Bihar proposed to acquire 54.08 acres of land. The respondents challenged the legality of the notices under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Patna High Court quashed the same. Patna Improvement Trust came in appeal before the Supreme Court. The argument on behalf of the respondents in the High Court was that if land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of the Patna Improvement Trust then it can be acquired in accordance with the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 and not under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act because the Bihar Act completely repealed the Land Acquisition Act in regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Improvement Trust. Kapur J., speaking for the majority held that it was not necessary to go into the argument of inconsistency between the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act or the special Act excluding the general because it appeared to the majority that the various provisions of the Bihar Act themselves afforded the key to the solution of the problem which was one of construction. His Lordship referred to section 71 of the Bihar Act and the schedule to the Bihar Act (and particularly the exception finding place in sub-clause (1) of clause 2 of the schedule which was to the effect that "except where a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or a declaration under section 6 of the said Act has been previously made and is in force") and it was held that the intention of the legislature was not to exclude the functions of the Land Acquisition Act such as sections 4, 6, 50 etc., in the matter of acquisition of land for the purpose of Improvement Trust.25. It may be mentioned that the Patna High Court had held that the principle, generalis specialibus non-derogant applied and both the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act were concerned with acquisition of land, the former being a special Act relating to acquisitions for the purpose of Improvement Trusts, it applied to the execlusion of the latter Act which was general. The Patna High Court had also held that the Improvement Trust was bound to follow the procedure expressly laid down in the Bihar Act. The High Court also held that as under the Bihar Act, the Improvement Trust was entitled to carry out its duties for which it had been constitutied, it could not carry out development or expansion without a Master Plan under section 33 of the Act or without following the procedure under section 42A of the Act.26. It is to be noted that Subba Rao, J., gave the dissenting judgment. His Lordship observed:- "A perusal of the relevant provision of the Act also indicates an integrated design for drawing schemes of improvement and implementing them by acquisition or otherwise ... Section 33 empowers the Trust to prepare a master plan. Sections 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41 and 42 authorise the Trust to make various schemes within the framework of the master plan. Section 42A enables the Trust to make a scheme for improvement in respect of an area not included in the master plan. Sections 43 to 47 provide for issue of requisite notices to persons effected by the scheme and for consideration of representations and objections that may be made to the Trust. Section 48 provides for notice of the proposed acquisition of land .... It is, therefore, dear that under the Act before a land is acquired by the Trust for its purposes, it has got to go through a quasi-judicial procedure for finalising the scheme. The parties affected have every opportunity to object to the scheme proposed generally or in so far as it affected their land and even thereafter to file objections to the acquisition of their land. This complicated procedure conceived to reconcile individual rights and social purposes cannot be short-circuited by the Trust ignoring the Act altogether and approaching the State Government for acquiring land for its purpose which it can only implement in the manner provided by the Act. This complicated procedure conceived to reconcile individual rights and social purposes cannot be short-circuited by the Trust ignoring the Act altogether and approaching the State Government for acquiring land for its purpose which it can only implement in the manner provided by the Act. The broad scheme of the Act also, therefore, supports the conclusion that the Trust can only implement the scheme involving acquisition of land in the manner provided by the Act..... The saving of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 in para 2(1) of the Schedule, the argument proceeds, discloses an intention of the Legislature to, preserve the Land Acquisition without any modification as an alternation for the Trust acquiring land to implement its scheme. This argument, if accepted, is destructive of the entire scheme of the Act ...... Learned counsel for the appellant suggests that the notification under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Act refers to that made by the Government under the said sections before the Act came into force. But the words "previously made" are comprehensive enough to take in the notification under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Act made after the passing of the Act, but prior to the issue of the first publication of notice of implementation of the scheme under Section 46 of the Act. The exception will cover such notification issued before or after the Ad. Section 33(3) of the Act contemplates such a notification. Under that section a master plan prepared by the Trust may designate a particular land as subject to compulsory acquisition by the State Government ... The Government might have issued a notification under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of such land, in such a case the exception is attracted and the notice under Section 46 of the Act cannot be substituted for it. It is not suggested that the notification in question was issued by the Government in respect of land designated under the master plan as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the State Government. On this interpretation the exception does not become otiose and it fits in squarely with the scheme of the Act. It is not suggested that the notification in question was issued by the Government in respect of land designated under the master plan as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the State Government. On this interpretation the exception does not become otiose and it fits in squarely with the scheme of the Act. So, the exception in clause (3) dealing with deferred street schemes under section 39 of the Act can be made to refer only to such notification issued by the Government under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. I would, therefore, hold that whenever the Trust seeks to acquire land for the purpose of implementation of the scheme for which it was constituted, it can only acquire land in the manner prescribed by the Act, that is to say, in accordance with the land acquisition provisions incorporated in the Act by reference. As in the present case the notifications issued by the Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of the land in question for trust purposes do not fall under the exception, the said notifications were void." 27. In Arnold Rodricks and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1966 SC 1788 , the Commissioner, Bombay Division, notified that the land belonging to the petitioners were likely to be needed "for a public purpose, viz., for development and utilisation of the said lands as an individual and residential area". One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the Government had not before issuing the notifications prepared any scheme. Dealing with this contention, Sikri J. speaking for the majority, at page 1799, para 23 of the reported judgment, observed : 'This is true that the Government has not uptill now prepared any scheme for the utilisation of the developed sites. But the notification itself shows that the sites would be used as residential and industrial sites. There is no law that requires a scheme to be prepared before issuing a notification under section 4 or section 6 of the Act (i.e. the Land Acquisition Act). We have, however, no doubt that the Government will, before disposing of the sites, have a scheme for their disposal." 28. Facts in Aflatoon and others v. Lt. There is no law that requires a scheme to be prepared before issuing a notification under section 4 or section 6 of the Act (i.e. the Land Acquisition Act). We have, however, no doubt that the Government will, before disposing of the sites, have a scheme for their disposal." 28. Facts in Aflatoon and others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, AIR 1974 SC 2077 : (1976) 4 SCC 285 , were that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating that an area of 34.070 acres of land was needed for a public purpose, viz., the planned development of Delhi. One of the argument advanced was that, as the acquisition,was made for the planned development of Delhi, it could be carried out only in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, and that, under section 15 of that Act, it was only the Central Government which could have issued the notification under section 4, after having formed the opinion that the acquisition of the land was necessary for the planned development of Delhi and since the notification was issued by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, the notification was void ab initio. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this regard, speaking through Mathew, J., observed as under : "The planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Government before 1959, viz., even before the Delhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi except in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force, but there was no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the Act before the Master Plan was ready (see the decision in Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, AIR 1961, S.C. 1077) . In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property. Acquisition generally precedes development. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property. Acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an area other than a development area, it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in section 12(3). The Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. We do not think it necessary to go into the question whether the power to acquire land under section 15 was delegated by the Central Government to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. We have already held that the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the validity of the notification under section 4 on the ground of laches and acquiescence. The plea that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had no authority to initiate the proceedings for acquisition by issuing the notification under section 4 of the Act as section 15 of the Delhi Development Act giving that power only to the Central Government relates primarily to the validity of the notification. Even assuming that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi was not authorised by the Central Government to issue the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, since the appellants and the writ petitioners are precluded by the laches and acquiescence from questioning the notification, the contention must, in any event, be negatived and we do so." 29. The question directly arose in Indore Development Authority v. Madan Lal and others, (1990) 2 SCC 334 . Facts were that on March 16, 1973, M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adbiniyam, 1973 was brought into force. Prior to that date, there was in force an Act called M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act (for short 'The Trust Act'). Under the Trust Act, the Indore Improvement Trust was constituted. The Indore Improvement Trust framed in town Expansion Scheme No. 72 under the provisions of the Trust Act. It invited objections from persons whose lands were proposed to be acquired for executing the scheme. Some persons filed objections and suggestions and they were considered. The Improvement Trust by itself had no authority to approve the scheme. It must obtain sanction of the State Government. Accordingly, the Government was approached for grant of sanction to the scheme. It invited objections from persons whose lands were proposed to be acquired for executing the scheme. Some persons filed objections and suggestions and they were considered. The Improvement Trust by itself had no authority to approve the scheme. It must obtain sanction of the State Government. Accordingly, the Government was approached for grant of sanction to the scheme. Section 50 of the Trust Act provided that when the Government was approached for sanction, the Trust shall cause notice of that fact to be published for two consecutive weeks in the gazette and in the local newspaper. Section 51 of the Trust Act empowered the State Government either to sanction the scheme with or without modifications or to refuse the sanction or to return the scheme for reconsideration by the Improvement Trust. Section 52(1) of the Trust Act provided that whenever the State Government sanctioned an improvement scheme, it should be notified and section 52(2) provided that the publication of such a notification shall be conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly framed and sanctioned. But in that case the Government could not grant sanction to Scheme No. 72 as when the scheme was pending consideration, the Development Authority under the Adhiniyam was established on July 13, 1977 and consequently the Trust Act stood repeated (repealed) and the Improvement Trust was replaced by Development Authority. The Development Authority, however, notified the said scheme under sanction 50(4) of the Adhiniyam and it was published in the gazette dated September 30, 1977. It was stated therein that the scheme was duly approved for Indore Plan area and it would come into operation from the date of publication of the notification. On May 4, 1978 there was notification issued under section 50(7) of the Adhinivam giving information to the general public about Khasra numbers of the lands sought to be acquired for implementation of the scheme. That was followed by letters or request to the Collector for acquiring the lands of the respondents. However, the lands were not immediately acquired. The Collector took his own time. He issued the notification dated March 29, 1985 under section 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act. He issued declarations dated June 26, 1986, June 27, 198h and July 11, 1986 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the lands were not immediately acquired. The Collector took his own time. He issued the notification dated March 29, 1985 under section 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act. He issued declarations dated June 26, 1986, June 27, 198h and July 11, 1986 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Then the respondents prepared writ petition challenging the validity of the acquisition as well as Town Development Scheme No. 72. The High Court quashed the acquisition and also held that the scheme No. 72 which was not approved by the Government under the Trust Act could not have been adapted by the Indore Development Authority as if it were a scheme prepared under the Adhiniyam.30. One more event occurred. After the Adhinivam of 1973 was brought into force and before the Development Authority was constituted, the Government had sanctioned the Master Plan called the Indore Development Plan. It was prepared under the Adhiniyam. The draft development plan was published on June 10, 1974 under the provisions of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam inviting objections and suggestions from persons who were likely to be affected. In all, 343 objections and 31 suggestions were received from persons, public institutions, Government departments and other organisations. The Director and the Additional Director, Town and Country Planning after giving due consideration to all the objections and suggestions modified the plan and submitted to the State Government for approvel. On March 1, 1975, the State Government approved the said plan under section 19 of the Adhiniyam and the same was published in the gazette dated March 21, 1975. Under section 19(5) of the Adhiniyam the Development Plan would came into operation from the (late of publication of the notification and would he binding on all including development authorities and local bodies functioning within the planning area of Indore. Under the Adhiniyam, it was not necessary for the Development Authority to approach to the Government for according sanction to the scheme prepared by the Development Authority. The Development Authority was the whole and sole authority to prepare and approve any Development Scheme. Section 50 of the Adhiniyam provided complete procedure for preparation of draft Town Development Scheme, its publication, consideration of objections and suggestions, approval of the draft scheme, its final publication and its coming into operation. The Development Authority was the whole and sole authority to prepare and approve any Development Scheme. Section 50 of the Adhiniyam provided complete procedure for preparation of draft Town Development Scheme, its publication, consideration of objections and suggestions, approval of the draft scheme, its final publication and its coming into operation. His Lordship K. Jagannatha Shetty J., speaking for the court observed : "It is not in dispute that the Development Authority did not follow the procedure prescribed under section, 50 of the Adhiniyam for preparation of Scheme No. 72. A note dated August 24, 1977 prepared by the officers of the Development Authority indicates that the Scheme No. 72 was approved under Section 50(4) of the Adhiniyam without inviting objections and without considering the same. It was, however, argued for the appellant that the Development Authority need not have invited fresh objections and suggestions for consideration since that procedure has already been followed by the Improvement Trust under the Trust Act...... We do not think that the Development Authority was justified in following a short cut in this case. The procedure followed under the Trust Act could not be sufficient to dispense with all the requirements of section 50 of the Adhiniyam.... Indeed, the public must also have an opportunity to examine the scheme and file objections in the light of the Master Plan if the Development Authority wants to adopt the scheme. Since the scheme in question was not an approved scheme under the Trust Act, the Development Authority could not have dispensed with the procedure prescribed under section 50 of the Adhiniyam..... The High Court has held that the term 'scheme prepared' in the context must mean a completed scheme in respect of which all the procedures under the Trust Act have been followed. We agree with the conclusion as in our opinion, it is a correct view to the taken. But the Scheme No. 72 was not a completed scheme under the Trust Act .... Since that scheme was just a draft scheme under the Trust Act, it could not get the benefit of legal fiction provided under section 87 (1) (c) (ii) of the Adhiniyam. But the Scheme No. 72 was not a completed scheme under the Trust Act .... Since that scheme was just a draft scheme under the Trust Act, it could not get the benefit of legal fiction provided under section 87 (1) (c) (ii) of the Adhiniyam. Besides even if the scheme was prepared with the approval of the Government under the Trust Act it could not be deemed to be a scheme under the Adhiniyam unless it is in conformity with the Master Plan of Indore and it cannot also be said to be a scheme showed under section 87 (1) (c) (ii) of the Adhiniyam. However, in the circumstances of the case and to avoid delay in the preparation of the fresh draft scheme, we reserve liberty to the Development Authority to invite objections and suggestions with regard to Scheme No. 72 under section 50(3) and consider the same under section 50(4) of the Adhiniyam and take further steps according to law, if so advised. There is yet another aspect. The High Court has quashed the acquisition of lands belonging to the respondents, but not on the ground of any illegality in the procedure followed. Mr. Prasaran, learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the notifications issued under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act may not be disturbed and the claimants will be given compensation at the current rate if the scheme is adopted and impelmented. The submission appears to be reasonable and it would avoid repetition of the procedure for acquisition. We record the submission of the learned counsel. We also direct that the claimants shall be paid compensation for the lands acquired at the market value as on the date of publication of the scheme under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam if the scheme is ultimately approved as indicated above." 31. The question for decision in State of Tamil Nadu & anr. v. A. Mohammed Yousuf & ors, 1991-III SVLR (C) 150 , was whether the acquisition proceedings, which were started for obtaining land for construction of houses by the Tamilnadu Housing Board, could be initiated only after the framing of housing scheme under the Madras Housing Board Act, 1961 and not earlier. v. A. Mohammed Yousuf & ors, 1991-III SVLR (C) 150 , was whether the acquisition proceedings, which were started for obtaining land for construction of houses by the Tamilnadu Housing Board, could be initiated only after the framing of housing scheme under the Madras Housing Board Act, 1961 and not earlier. In this respect, his Lordship Lalit Mohan Sharma J., observed as follows:- "We have closely examined the entire Act with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and in our view the contention on behalf of the respondents that the proceeding for acquiring land can be commenced only after the scheme is framed, is well founded. 6 As has been stated earlier, Chapter VII containing sections 35 to 69 deals with the framing of the scheme. The Act has laid down separate procedures for the different types of schemes, according to necessity and suitability. Some of the schemes do not require acquisition of land, which is however, essential for constructing residential buildings under the housing schem. Section 39 of the Act, therefore, while enumerating the matters to be included in the scheme, specifically mentions acquisition of land in clause (9). If the acquisition is contemplated as a subject-matter of the scheme itself, it follows that it must await the preparation of the scheme wherein it will be included .... Sub-section (1) of Section 49 directs the notice of the draft housing scheme to include and specify the following information as contained in clause (b) for the purpose of publication and information to the general public: "(b) the place or places at which particulars of the scheme, a map of area, and deaths of the land which it is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which it is proposed to recover a betterment fee, may be seen at reasonable hours." (emphasis added) The underlined words alone reaffirm the position that the acquisition of the land has to be a part of the scheme, which can be executed only after its finalisation. Apart from the provisions of section 53 mentioned above, section 56 further clothes the Board with the power to alter or cancel the scheme even after it is finally sanctioned. Apart from the provisions of section 53 mentioned above, section 56 further clothes the Board with the power to alter or cancel the scheme even after it is finally sanctioned. The language of clause (b) of the proviso to the section, which is quoted below, once more leads to the same conclusion that the acquisition of the land has to await the framing of the scheme : "(b) If any alteraion involves the acquisition otherwise shown by agreement of any land not provisionally proposed to be acquired in the original scheme, the procedure presribed in the forgoing sections of this Chapter shall, so far as it may be applicable, be followed as if the alterations were a separate scheme." (emphasis added) Mr. Attorney General repeatedly said that unless the Board gets actual possession of the land in question, its officers cannot go over the same for collecting the information essential for drawing up of the scheme. It has, therefore, been suggested that it is wholly impractical to expect the scheme to be framed before obtaining the possession of the land. Mr. Parasaran, the learned counsel for the respondents, rightly pointed out that the provisions of section 147 give a complete answer to this argument. The section empowers the Chairman (now the Managing Director) of the Board or any person either generally or specially authorised by him in this behalf to enter into or upon any land with or without assistants or workmen for the purpose of making any inspection, survey, measurement, valuation or enquiry or to take levels or to dig or bore into sub-soil or to setout boundaries and intended lines up work etcetera. The last clause in the section gives wide power to do any other thing which may appear necessary for achieving the purpose of the Act subject to certain reasonable restrictions. If the notification and or section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is published without waiting for the scheme, as has been done in the present case, it will not be possible for the land owners to object to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the land is not suitable for the scheme at all, and, therefore, does not serve any public purpose, or that another piece of land in the area concerned is far more suitable leading to the conclusion that the proposed acquisition is mala fide. As discussed above, the provisions of the housing Board Act also suggest the same. The Board has not been vested with the unrestricted power to frame any scheme, as suggested by its planers. It has to take into account the representation by the local authority as mentioned under section 50 and the objection of any other person under section 53 and decide the same on merits before according sanction. The matter is not concluded even at that stage the aggrieved person may appeal to the State Government and it is only subject to the final result therein that the scheme becomes enforceable. In this set up it will be practical and consistent with common sense to have the scheme finalised before starting an acquisition proceeding. We, accordingly, held that a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act can be commenced only after framing the scheme for which the land is required. The notification issued under section 4 in the present case must, therefore, be held to be premature and it was rightly quashed by the High Court." 32. The main object of the J.D.A. according to section 16 of the Act, is to secure the integrated development of the Jaipur Region and for that purpose the function of the J.D.A. are, inter alia, (a) urban planning including the preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans and carrying out surveys for the purpose; (b) formulation and sanction of the projects and schemes for the development of the Jaipur Region or any part thereof; (c) execution of projects and schemes directly by itself or through a local authority or any other agency; (d) to make recommendations to the State Government of any matter or proposal requiring action by the State Government, Central Government, any local authority or any other authority for overall development of Jaipur Region; (e) preparing schemes and advising the concerned authorities, developments and agencies in formulating schemes for development of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, dairy development, transport, communication, schooling, cultural activities, sports, medicare, tourism, entertainment and similar other activities; (f) execution of projects and schemes on the directions of the State Government; (g) undertaking housing activity in Jaipur Region according to the delineation of responsibility made by the State Government; (h) to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property; (i) to enter into contracts, agreements or arrangement with any person or organisation for performing its functions, etc. 33. 33. Section 29(1) of the Act provides that as soon as may be after a plan comes into operation as provided in section 24, the J.D.A., may, by notification in the official gazette, declare any area in Jaipur Region to be a development area for the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides that:- "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which is not a development area. Sub-section (3) of section 29 provides that on or after the date on which notification under sub-section (1) is published in the official gazette, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land without the permission in writing of the J.D.A. However, there are nine provisos appended to this sub-section. Section 31 of the Act provides for penalty for unauthorised development or for use otherwise than in conformity with the plan. Sections 34 and 35 deal with removal or discontinuance of unauthorised development or use.34. Section 38 of the Act inter alia provides that:- "38. Making and contents of Projects and Schemes- (1) subject to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Authority for the purpose of implementing the proposals in any plan, may make such projects and schemes for the integrated development of Jaipur Region or any part thereof, as may be considered necessary. Making and contents of Projects and Schemes- (1) subject to the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Authority for the purpose of implementing the proposals in any plan, may make such projects and schemes for the integrated development of Jaipur Region or any part thereof, as may be considered necessary. (2) A project or scheme may make provisions for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (i) any of the matters specified in sections 21 and 22; (ii) acquisition, development, reservation and sale or leasing of land for purpose of public utilities such as roads, streets, open spaces, parks, gardens, recreation and play grounds, hospitals, dispensaries, educational institutions, greenbelts, dairies, housing development, development of markets shopping centres, commercial complexes, cultural centres, administrative centres, transport facilities and public purposes of all kinds; (iii) acquisition, laying out or relaying out of land either vacant or already built upon re-building or re-locating areas which have been badly laid out or which have developed or degenerated into a slum or Kachhi basit, the filling up or reclamation of low-lying, swampy or unhealthy areas or levelling up of lands; (iv) acquisition and development of areas for commercial, industrial, transportation, agricultural mandies and other similar purpose, and so on and so forth. (3) The draft project or scheme shall contain the following particulars, namely (a) the area, ownership and tenure of each original plot; (b) the particulars of land allotted or reserved under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) with a general indication of the uses to which such land is to be put and the terms and conditions subject to which such land is to be put to such uses; (c) the extent to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries of original plots; (d) the estimate of the net cost of the scheme to be borne by the appropriate authority; (e) a full description of all the details of the scheme under sub-section (2) as may be applicable; (f) the laying out or relaying out of land either vacant or already built upon; (g) the filling up or reclamation of low, laying, swampy or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land; and (h) any other particulars as may be determined by regulations." 35. Section 39 of the Act prescribes detailed procedure for preparation of projects and schemes. Section 39 of the Act prescribes detailed procedure for preparation of projects and schemes. J.D.A. has first to, by resolution, declare its intention to prepare a project or scheme as provided in section 38 in any development area. The declaration has to be published in the official gazette not later than thirty days from the date of declaration. Not later than two years from the date of publication of the declaration, the Authority has to prepare the project or scheme in draft from and to publish the same with a notice inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the said draft project or scheme. The Authority has to consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice and to give reasonable opportunity to persons affected as are desirous of being heard. After that the Authority shall approve the draft project or scheme as published with or without modifications. The project or scheme as approved is required to be published in the official gazette and the date of its coming into operation is also to be specified. However, this procedure is not required to be followed in case the project or scheme is to be carried out on any land vested in the Authority and no demolition of any building or removal or persons living thereat is involved in its execution. Section 40 of the Act provides that on or after the date on which a draft scheme is published under section 39, no person shall, within the area included in the project or scheme institute or change the use of any land or building or carry out any development, unless such person has applied for and allowed necessary permission for doing so from the Authority. Section 41 states that if the Authority fails to implement the project or scheme approved under sub-section (4) of the section 39 within a period of five years from the date of publication thereof under subsection (5) thereof, it shall, on the expiration of the period of five years, lapse. Section 42 deals with modifications or withdrawal of project or scheme.36. Section 45 of the Act deals with power of State Government to acquire land. It reads as follows : "45. Section 42 deals with modifications or withdrawal of project or scheme.36. Section 45 of the Act deals with power of State Government to acquire land. It reads as follows : "45. Power to (of) State Government to acquire land.-(1) Where, on any representation from the Authority, it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable the Authority to perform any of its functions or to discharge any of its duties or to exercise any of its power, or to carry out any of its projects or schemes or development programmes, it is necessary that any land in any part of the Jaipur Region should be acquired, the State Government may acquire the land under and in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)." 37. Section 85 of the Act empowers the Chairman and Members of Authority, the Executive Committee; any other committee; any Functional Board or anybody thereof, the Jaipur Development Commissioner and officers and servants of the Authority authorised by him in this behalf to enter into or upon any land or building, inter alia for the purpose of (a) making any enquiry, inspection, measurement or survey or taking levels of such land or building; (b) examining the works under construction and ascertaining the course of sewers and drains; (c) digging or boring into the sub-soil; (d) setting out boundaries and intended line of works etc. These are the relevant provisions in the Act concerned with the points involved in the writ petitions.38. Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was concerned with improvement and expansion of urban area in the State of Rajasthan with very little financial resources. The sources of finance for "Improvement Fund" under Section 61, were sums as may be placed by the State Government either by way of loan or as subsidy, contribution from the Municipal Board on the basis of benefit accruing in the resources of the Board from the schemes undertaken by the Trust, rents, profits and sale proceeds of lands, building and other property vesting in the Trust, sums borrowed by the Trust and fees and charges receivable by the Trust under the said Act. The area of operation of the Improvement Trusts was also limited and confined to "urban area" notified under section 3 of the Act and the declaration of the 'urban area' depended upon the specification made by the State Government in its order. Yet section 72 of the Act of 1959 said that in an urban area, no improvement shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or department of the Government unless, (i) it was in accordance with the master plan, or (ii) it was in accordance with the scheme sanctioned and notified under section 38; or (iii) where neither any master plan nor any scheme was in force, it was according to the general approval of the Trust. The framing, sanction and publication of the scheme was to be done under and in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter-V of the Act of 1959.39. Jaipur City, being capital of the State of Rajasthan and migration of population to this capital city being highest in the State, development of Jaipur had to be viewed in the context of a bigger area statutorily named as "Jaipur Region" consisting of Jaipur City, six towns of Sanganer, Amer, Bagru, Chomu and Bassi and as many as 335 villages falling under Tehsils of Jaipur, Sanganer, Amer, Jamwa Ramgarh, Bassi and Chaksu. A bigger statutory authority than Urban Improvement Trust under the corporate name of Jaipur Development Authority was felt necessary. The crucial functions of this Authority were "planning, co-ordinating and supervising", the object was "proper, orderly and rapid development of Jaipur Region so that housing, community facilities, civil amenities and other infrastructures were properly created for this region in a long term perspective of 2001 A.D. The planning was to be made by precisely defining the quality of life that a citizen residing in Jaipur Region could desirably be expected to lead by the medium range perspective of the year 1991 and the long-term perspective of the year 2001 and thereafter. Not only was there to be an Executive Committee of the Authority but there was also to be a Funcional Board called as the Jaipur Traffic Control Board. Not only was there to be an Executive Committee of the Authority but there was also to be a Funcional Board called as the Jaipur Traffic Control Board. Following expressions in section 21(2) of the Act would indicate, the high aims and targets which the Legislature intended to be achieved by the Authority, namely:- "balanced and time targeted development to subserve the needs of the growing city of Jaipur and otter areas of Jaipur Region, the network of public utilities, civil amenities, community facilities, housing, communications and transport, the projects or schemes for conservation and development of natural resources and such other matters as are likely to have a bearing on the integrated development of the Jaipur Region." And then were particularised, (i) transport and communications such as roads, highways, railways, canals, international airports, air cargo, complexes and bus services, (ii) water supply, drainage, sewerage, sewage disposal and other public amenities and services, including electricity and gas, (iii) preservation and development of areas of natural scenery, city forests, wildlife, natural resources and land scaping, (iv) preservation of places of historical, natural, architectural or scientific interest and educational value, (v) afforestation or reforestation, (vi) prevention of water and air pollution (vii) educational and medical facilities, (viii) business centres and other shopping complexes, (ix) games and sports complexes worthy of holding international events, (x) amusement parks, gardens, picnic centres, (xi) theatres, cinemas etc., (xii) tourist complexes; (xiii) development of satellite towns including new townships, (xiv) housing including rural housings; and what so very necessary for not only the capital city of Rajasthan but for an already well-planned city of India. Could this all be done without proper planning, framing of proper schemes and projects ? The answer can only be in the negative. Therefore, the Act incorporated in it systematic, integrated and wellknit provisions ensuring planned and coordinated development of Jaipur Region through execution of plans, Projects and schemes. The first step was that of declaring any area in Jaipur Region to be developed area for the purposes of the Act. Section 29 (2) of the Act is very emphatic in saying that "save as otherwise provided in the Act, the Authority shall not undertake or carry any development of land in any area which is not a development area. Section 29 (2) of the Act is very emphatic in saying that "save as otherwise provided in the Act, the Authority shall not undertake or carry any development of land in any area which is not a development area. How could the change in the user of any land could be prevented or the carrying out development of land without the permission of the Authority could be stopped unless the area was declared a development area under section 29(1) of the Act and for the purposes of the Act. For the purpose of implementing the proposals in master development plan or a zonal development plan, making of project or scheme by the Authority was necessary as provided in section 39 of the Act. The only exception made was that which was incorporated in section 39(b) of the Act which provides that : "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the procedure as laid down therein (i.e. in sub-sections (1) to (4) of section 39) shall not be required to be followed in case the project or scheme is to be carried out on any land vested in the Authority and no demolition of any building or removal of persons living thereat was involved in its execution." The other exception is that which is incorporated as a saving clause to any project or scheme in Section 43 of the Act. The use of the word "acquisition" in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 39 is very important and it so unambigously and in clear terms indicate that the matter of "acquisition of land" is also to be expressly provided in the project or scheme required to be made by the Authority. There is detailed and definite procedure provided in the Act for preparing of projects and schemes. The draft project or scheme has to contain the area, ownership and tenure of each original plat(plot), indication of the uses to which land is to be put, a full description of all the details of the scheme under sub-section (2) of Section 38 etc., (see section 38 (3) of the Act). The Authority has, by resolution, to declare its intention to prepare a project or scheme as provided in section 38 in any development area. The Authority has, by resolution, to declare its intention to prepare a project or scheme as provided in section 38 in any development area. The declaring of this intention has to be published in the official gazette not later than thirty days from the date of the declaration. Thereafter the draft project or scheme is to be prepared. It has to be published with a notice inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the draft project or scheme. The Authority has to consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice and to give a reasonable opportunity to persons affected thereby who were desirous of being heard before approving the draft project or scheme with or without modifications. The project or scheme as approved under sub-section (4) of section 39, with or without modifications, is to be published in the official gazette and in such other manner as may be determined by regulations as a final project or scheme and specify the date on which it shall come into operation. As already observed, the matter of acquisition of land has also to be provided and specified in a scheme for housing development, development of markets and for development of areas for commercial and industrial purposes vide section 38(2) of the Act and it has to contain the area, ownership and tenure of each original plot vide section 38(3) (a).40. The State Government can acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on a representation from the J.D.A., when it appears to it that in order to enable the Authority (i) to perform any of its functions, (ii) to discharge any of its duties, (iii) to exercise any of its powers or (iv) to carry out of its projects or schemes or development programmes, it is necessary that any land in any part of the Jaipur Region should be acquired (see section 45 of the Act).41. It is well settled that if a statute directs a thing to be done in certain way that thing shall not, even if there be no negative words, be done in any other way (see (7) Ex-parte Stephens (1876) 3 Ch.D. 659.42. It is well settled that if a statute directs a thing to be done in certain way that thing shall not, even if there be no negative words, be done in any other way (see (7) Ex-parte Stephens (1876) 3 Ch.D. 659.42. It is noteworthy that under section 83(8) of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order of the Authority can file an appeal in the Tribunal constituted under section 83(1) of the Act and consequently even an appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order of the Authority passed under section 39(4) of the Act approving the draft project or scheme.43. Reference may be made to the additional affidavit filed by Shri Dalu Ram Meena, Additional Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority filed in some of the writ petitions. He has sworn in that an.agenda item was circulated amongst the members of the Jaipur Development Authority vide notice dated 5.7.1985 to be taken into consideration in the 7th meeting of the Authority to be held on 13.7.1985. It is said that the agenda provided taking up of the new schemes- (i) Prithvi Raj Nagar round about Ajmer Road in an area of about 2250 hectares, and (ii) Panchwati Nagar Scheme on Ramgarh Road (Annex. R-A and R-B). It appears from Annex. R-D that draft of the new schemes proposed by the JDA was directed to be brought to the notice of the members of the Authority in time so that they may be able to give their suggestions. Details of the two schemes were circulated amongst the members of the Authority by notice Annex. R-E on 31st December, 1985 and at its item No. 2, there was reference to Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme. Shri Dalu Ram Meena proceeded further to swear in his affidavit as below : "That as required, the Senior Town Planner sent the report regarding the Urban are requirements for the year 2005 for consideration of the Urban Housing Development Department of the Government of Rajasthan... According to this Annex. R/E the Master Plan 1991 was required to be modified as proposed therein. The Jaipur Development Authority on 12/13th October, 1988 sent a letter to the Urban Development & Housing Department of the Government of Rajasthan and therewith sent a status paper in regard to the programme of the Jaipur Development Authority for the Eighth Five Year Plan. The same is filed herewith as Annex. The Jaipur Development Authority on 12/13th October, 1988 sent a letter to the Urban Development & Housing Department of the Government of Rajasthan and therewith sent a status paper in regard to the programme of the Jaipur Development Authority for the Eighth Five Year Plan. The same is filed herewith as Annex. R/H, and the status paper is filed herewith as Annex.R/I. A perusal of the aforesaid Annex. R/I will show the various activities regarding the schemes to be undertakne and being provided by the Authority has been given. This status paper also makes a specific mention of the Prithvi Raj Nagar Project also. That the Jaipur Development Authority vide letter No. 191 dated 21.11.1988 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Urban Development & Housing Department, Jaipur requested the Government for approval to the change in the urbanisable limits as provided in the Master Plan of Jaipur and consequently in the peripheral control belt (green belt) zone limits therein for the reasons mentioned therein, namely, it was proposed to include the area popularly known as Prithvi Raj Nagar in the urbanisable limits of Jaipur. The list of the villages falling in the peripheral control belt was also appended thereto. This letter is filed herewith as Annex. R/J and that the Government of Rajasthan vide its letter No. F. 10 (15)UDII/88 dated 26.8.1989 has recorded its approval thereto. This letter is filed herewith as Annex. R/K. It may be stated that the period of the existing Master Plan is also getting over by 1991. The specific land uses in such peripheral control belt can only be specified when as a result of the completion of the acquisition proceedings of the land in the area, the actual land comes in possession of the Authority. That a draft proposed plan (drawing) o4 Prithvi Raj Nagar scheme proposed in the year 1986 by the Town Planning Wing of the Jaipur Development Authority shall be produced before the Hon'ble Court for perusal at the time of hearing. A perusal of this Draft Plan, the Hon'ble Court will find that large area have been proposed for huge gardens and parks and other recreational facilities apart from the provision for educational, medical and commercial and other activities besides the residential areas. A perusal of this Draft Plan, the Hon'ble Court will find that large area have been proposed for huge gardens and parks and other recreational facilities apart from the provision for educational, medical and commercial and other activities besides the residential areas. That in the Master Plan for Jaipur, a District J by the name of green belt district has been specified and from the perusal thereof peripheral control belt i.e. the green belt is to be developed as Urban villages in order to cope with the increasing need of the population." 44. In the Status paper for the 8th Five Year Plan, the J.D.A. had stated about Prithvi Raj Nagar Project as under: "A full township of about 2500 hectares is proposed to be developed. It will have housing, institution, universities, hospital, gardens etc. For its development, an amount of Rs. 5 sores would be required." Annex. R/J was written by the Jaipur Development Commissioner to the Secretary to the Government, Urban Development & Housing Department on 21st November, 1988 for change in the urbanisable limits and consequently in the Peripheral Control Bent (Green Belt) Zone limits of the Master Plan of Jaipur. By Annexure R/K, the Deputy Secretary to Government wrote to the Jaipur Development Commissioner on 26.8.1989 as under: "I am directed to refer to your letter No. 191 dated 21st November, 1988 on the subject contained above and to convey approval of the State Government for the change in the urbanisable limits and consequently in the peripheral control belt (green belt) zone limits of the Master Plan of Jaipur. The particulars of the villages to be included in the urbanisable limits and peripheral control belt are as follows:- A. Villages proposed to be included in the urbanisable limits of Jaipur Master Plan. Name of District Name of Tehsil Namme of Villages Jaipur Jaipur Jhotwara, Govindpura, Cokulpura, Chak Pithawas, Panchawala, Lawas Urf Minawala, Bishanwala, Bir Khatipura, Girdharipura, Hirapura, Lalarpura, Dhaowas, Gajsingpura. Jaipur Sanganer Nand Keshorepura, Mangyawas, Chak Ganpat pura No.1, Chak Ganpatpura No. 2, Asarpura, Nagiawas, Badarwas, Marampura, Urf Khejda, Kalyanpura. B. Villages to be included in the peripheral control belt (green belt) of Jaipur Master Plan. , Jaipur Jaipur Hitoda, Pithawas, Bir Hatoda, Niwarsu. Jaipur Sanganer Jaisinghpura, Narotampura, Ramsinghpura Urf Rampura, Chak Harbanspura, Madan, Mohanpura, Jagat Girdharipura and Bir Sakari. Jaipur Sanganer Nand Keshorepura, Mangyawas, Chak Ganpat pura No.1, Chak Ganpatpura No. 2, Asarpura, Nagiawas, Badarwas, Marampura, Urf Khejda, Kalyanpura. B. Villages to be included in the peripheral control belt (green belt) of Jaipur Master Plan. , Jaipur Jaipur Hitoda, Pithawas, Bir Hatoda, Niwarsu. Jaipur Sanganer Jaisinghpura, Narotampura, Ramsinghpura Urf Rampura, Chak Harbanspura, Madan, Mohanpura, Jagat Girdharipura and Bir Sakari. Further approval is also accorded for the inclusion of four revenue villages of Sanganer Tchsil, namely, Bampalla, Sheopur, Nagariyawala and Dhelawas in the urbanisable limits of Jaipur Master Plan and for the inclusion of such other villages as Authority may deem necessary in the peripheral control belt of Jaipur Master flan adjoining to these villages. The aforesaid changes are being approved with a view to meet the growing needs of the population of Jaipur." 45. It has pertinently to be noted that the areas comprised in 21 villages of Jaipur and Sanganer Tehsils, which have been declared to be "development area" by notification dated 31st Oct., 91 by the JDA, had earlier, along with other villages, been declared as "urban area" of Jaipur under the Act of 1959 by the Government of Rajasthan, Town Planning Department, by its notification No. F.3(123)TP/72, dated 9th. Oct., 72. They also fell within "Jaipur Region" as defined in See. 2(7) of the Act read with Schedule-I, appended to the Act. The master-plan approved by the State Government under the Act of 1959 and published by notification No. F.1(6)TP/72, dated 4th June, 76 applied to areas comprised in these 21 villages as well as 110 others and Jaipur City. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, the Jaipur Development Authority, by notification No. F.7(215)LA/Plg./JDA/82/ 613, dated 25th Oct., 83, published in Rajasthan Gazette, Part-VI(B), dated 5th Apr., 84, declared (i) all areas falling within the urbanisable limit notified in the Jaipur Master-Plan, as well as strips of 300 metres width beyond the road boundary of the proposed outer ring road of Jaipur, which had been shown as forming the boundary of urbanisable limits of Jaipur City and (ii) strips of land measuring 300 feet wide from the road boundary, on both sides of all National Highways within the Jaipur Region, as "Development Areas" in Jaipur Region, with immediate effect. Thus, Jaipur City and 131 villages mentioned in notification No. F.1(6)TP/72, dated 9th Oct., 1972 issued under Section 3(1), read with item-X of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1959 and covered by Master Plan of Urban Area of Jaipur notified by notification No. F.l(6)TB/72, dated 4th June, 76, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 10th June, 76, became, by virtue of the above-mentioned notification dated 25th Oct., 83, "development area" declared under Section 29(1) of the Act.46. It appears that the Jaipur Development Authority out of sheer ignorance of its earlier notification No. F.7(215)/LA/Plg./82/613, dated 25th Oct., 83; or say - by way of abundant caution-redeclared the area comprised in 21 villages of Jaipur and Sanganer Tehsils specified in the notification dated 31st Oct., 91 as development area. These 21 villages were already included in the declaration of "development area" earlier made by the JDA by its notification dated 25th Oct., 83. It is, therefore, held under the first question that though it is true that until and unless an area was declared as a development area under section 29 of the Act, the State Government or the JDA could not take steps for the acquisition of land in that area, but in the instant case, the JDA had already by its notification No. F. 7(215)LA/Plg./JDA/82/613, dated 25th Oct., 83, declared the area of the lands sought to be acquired as a "development area" and the same was a declared "development area" under section 29 of the Act with effect from 5th Apr., 84, when the said notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette.47. The question regarding framing of project or scheme under sections 38 & 39 of the Act and its publication may next be dealt with. The JDA by its notification dated 3rd July, 84, had by resolution, declared its intention to make a project for utilising the land under the scheme for residential, commercial and industrial purposes in the development areas. It was declared that the approximate area of the land which would be acquired under the scheme would be 9000 bighas or 2250 hectares. The location and boundaries of the area were also specified. This declaration was published as required by the provisions of Section 39(2) of the Act. It was declared that the approximate area of the land which would be acquired under the scheme would be 9000 bighas or 2250 hectares. The location and boundaries of the area were also specified. This declaration was published as required by the provisions of Section 39(2) of the Act. It was notified that lands of village Govindpura, Vas, Jhotwara, Chak Peethawas alias Bararam, Gokulpura, Lawapura alias Meenawala, Kishanwala, Jhotwara, Panchiya-ki-Nangal alias Panchawala, Lalarpura, Girdharipura, Dhauwas, Heerapura, Govindpura and Badarwas in Tehsil Jaipur and of Villages of Chak Ganpatpura alias Govindpura, Nandkishorepura alias Maniyawas, Chak Ganpatpura, Manpur Debri alias Goliawas, Balrampura and Kalyanpura in Tehsil Sanganer, will be acquired for this scheme. This notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 12th July, 84. A draft scheme regarding a multipurpose residential, commercial, industrial and institutional use and development scheme to be known as Prithvi Raj Nagar, along with plan thereof, was published by notification dated 1st July, 1986, under Section 39(3) of the Act. It was notified that the draft of the scheme and plan was available for perusal in the office of the Director (Planning). Suggestions and objections in the matter could be submitted within ten days of the publication of this information to the Secretary of the Authority. This notification was published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika' (English Edition) dated 1st July, 86.48. It is not disclosed by the respondent No. 3 whether objections and suggestions with respect to the draft project or scheme of Prithvi Raj Nagar were received by it or not. In any event, there is nothing to show on behalf of the respondents that the draft project or scheme of Prithvi Raj Nagar was approved by the JDA. It has neither been pleaded by the respondents, nor is it their case in the reply that the draft project or scheme was approved by the JDA or that after its approval, the JDA published the final project or scheme in the Rajasthan Gazette, as required by sub-sections (4) & (5) of Section 39 of the Act. Annexures R-A, R-B, R-C or R-D do not record consideration and approval of the scheme of Prithvi Raj Nagar by the JDA. Annexure R-A goes to show that the meeting of the JDA, which was to be held on 3rd July, 85, did not take place. The agenda items and notes for meeting dated 13th July, 85 (Ann. Annexures R-A, R-B, R-C or R-D do not record consideration and approval of the scheme of Prithvi Raj Nagar by the JDA. Annexure R-A goes to show that the meeting of the JDA, which was to be held on 3rd July, 85, did not take place. The agenda items and notes for meeting dated 13th July, 85 (Ann. R-B) only mentioned that the JDA has taken in hand the work of preparing a residential scheme on Ajmer Road on 2250 hectares area and it is named as Prithvi Raj Nagar. The decisions taken in the meeting dated 13th July, 85 of the JAD are contained in Annexure R.D. Its item 7.2 does not record of approval of any draft scheme partaining to Prithvi Raj Nagar. By 13th July, 85, even the draft scheme regarding Prithvi Raj Nagar was not published by the JDA under section 39(3) of the Act. All that was stated by the Chairman of the JDA was that the JDA should send draft of the new projects to its members in time, so that, the members may be able to give their suggestions. Accordingly detailed comments on the proposed schemes were circulated to the members of the JDA on 31st Dec., 85 by Annexure R-E. It is very clear that at no stage and at no time the JDA considered the draft project or scheme of Prithvi Raj Nagar after the alleged publication of the same and at no time the JDA gave approval to the draft project or scheme. No approved scheme of the JDA as final project or scheme as required by Section 39(5) was published. Even Shri Dalu Ram Meena, Additional Secretary, JDA, in his affidavit, has not stated that Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme (in its draft) was considered by the JDA or that the scheme had been approved by it and that the final approved scheme or project was published in the Official Gazette. Even Shri Dalu Ram Meena, Additional Secretary, JDA, in his affidavit, has not stated that Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme (in its draft) was considered by the JDA or that the scheme had been approved by it and that the final approved scheme or project was published in the Official Gazette. I, therefore, hold that even if it is assumed that by the notification published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika' (English Edition) dated 1st July, 86, the draft scheme of Prithvi Raj Nagar was published and the scheme and the plan could be inspected in the office of the Director (Planning), the draft scheme and objections, if any, against the same were never considered by the JDA, the draft scheme was not approved by the JDA as required by Section 39(4) and finally approved scheme or project was not published in the Official Gazette as provided for in section 39(5) of the Act. It has already been observed that the draft scheme under Section 38 of the Act has also to make provision for acquisition, development, reservation, sale or leasing of land for housing development, development of markets, shopping centres, commercial complexes and acquisition & development of areas for commercial industrial and other similar purposes and consequently, the draft scheme or project providing for these matters including that of acquisition of land for above purpose had to be approved under sub-section (4) and had to be published in the Official Gazettee as final scheme or project, along with a specified date of its coming into operation as required under sub-section (5) of Section 39 of the Act before proceedings for acquisition of land initiated by it under Section 45 of the Act by making representation to the State Government. I am clearly of the opinion that the ratio dicidendi of the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Indore Development Authority v. Madanlal & others (1990) 2 SCC 334 and State of Tamil Nadu & another v. A. Mohammad Yousuf & others (1991 III SVLR (C) 150) fully and squarely applies to the facts and law applicable in the present case. In Arnold Rodrick's case (supra), the Commissioner, Bombay Division, had issued the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, that the land belonging to the petitioners in that case was likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., for development and utilisation of the lands as an industrial and residential area". One of the contentions advanced was that the Government had not, before issuing the notification prepared any scheme. It was pertinently observed : "There is no law that requires a scheme to be prepared before issuing a notification under section 4 or Section 6 of the Act." 49. In the present cases, there is the Jaipur Development Authority, 1982, which requires the making of project or scheme for residential, commercial, industrial and other purposes including therein the acquisition of land as well. Arnold Rodrick's case (supra) is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.50. In Aflatoon's case (supra), the planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Government before 1959, i.e., even before the Delhi Development Act came into force. By virtue of Section 12(3) (ii) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, actual development was permissible in an area other than a development area, with the approval or sanction of the local authority or any officer or authority thereof and, therefore, the Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. Thus, the provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957 were not pan materia with the provisions of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 82.51. In Patna Improvement Trust case (supra), the argument raised was entirely of different character. In that case, the contention on behalf of the respondent was that if land was sought to be acquired for the purpose of the Patna Improvement Trust, then, it could be acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 and not under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because, the former Act completely replaced the Land Acquisition Act in regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Improvement Trust. The majority of the Judges, speaking through Kapur, J., did not think it necessary to go into the argument of inconsistency between the Bihar Act and the Land Acquisition Act or the Special Act, excluding the general and rested their decision entirely on the construction of the various provisions of the Bihar Act, and held that the matter before them was covered by the exception made by the expression, "except where a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or a declaration under section 6 of the said Act has been previously made and is in force" used in clause 2(1) of the Schedule referred to in section 71(a) of the Bihar Act. His Lordship stated- "Thus when the exception applies the first notice under Section 46 of the Bihar Act has not that effect." His Lordship Subba Rao, J., who gave the dissenting judgment, did not agree with the interpretation placed by the majority to the exception given in clause 2(1) of the Schedule to the Bihar Act and construed the exception differently. On a construction. of the provisions contained in Sections 34 to 36, 39 to 47, 48 and 50 of the Bihar Act, his Lordship observed : "This complicated procedure, conceived to reconcile individual rights and social purposes, cannot be short-circuited by the Trust, ignoring the Act altogether and approaching the State Government for acquiring land for its purpose which it can only implement in the manner provided by the Act." 52. In cases before us, in a project or scheme of housing, commercial and industrial development on land not already vesting in the JDA, the acquisition of land is a necessary provision and content of the project or scheme and the JDA can make representation to the State Government to acquire land and the State Government can proceed to acquire the land for JDA under and in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, when "acquisition of land" itself forms part of a finally approved and published project or scheme framed under the Act. That is the interpretation and effect of the well-knitted provisions of the Act and that is what is known as "planned proper, orderly and rapid development of Jaipur Region". Let not this bulky and widely based Authority act off the Act which established and constituted it and in a hapazard and even in a secret manner. That is the interpretation and effect of the well-knitted provisions of the Act and that is what is known as "planned proper, orderly and rapid development of Jaipur Region". Let not this bulky and widely based Authority act off the Act which established and constituted it and in a hapazard and even in a secret manner. At every crucial stage right from the inception till end of the development plans, the Act has enjoined upon this Authority to be an open Authority open like a book - and it cannot be allowed to carry out its plans, programmes, projects or schemes in the darkness of night, in veiled cover or in secrecy. As rightly stated by Subba Rao, J. in Patna Improvement Trust's case (supra) "Individual rights and social purposes have to be reconciled and cannot be short-circuited." 53. Let us next turn to "Green Belt District" (Planning District J in the Master Plan). Life can exist without a house, commercial complex and factories, but it cannot survive where environment, air and water are polluted. 'Trees", it is rightly said, "prepare their own food by carbon-dioxide, but give to us oxygen-the very basis of our life."54. R.M. Sahai, J., in Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & others, (1991 III SVLR (C) 88) observed : "Public park as a place reserved for beauty and recreation was developed in 19th and 20th century and is associated with growth of the concept of equality and recognition of importance of common man. Earlier it was a prerogative of the aristocracy and the affluent either as a result of royal grant or as a place reserved for private pleasure. Free and healthy air in beautiful surroundings was privilege of few. But now it is a gift from people to themselves. Its importance has multiplied with emphasis on environment and pollution. In modern planning and development it occupies an important place in social ecology. A private nursing home, on the other hand, is essentially a commercial venture, a profit oriented industry. Service may be its moto but earning to the objective. Its utility may not be undermined but a park is a necessity not a mere amenity. A private nursing home cannot be a substitute for a public park. No town planner would prepare a blue print without reserving space for it.... Service may be its moto but earning to the objective. Its utility may not be undermined but a park is a necessity not a mere amenity. A private nursing home cannot be a substitute for a public park. No town planner would prepare a blue print without reserving space for it.... Absence of open space and public park, in present day when urbanisation is on increase, rural exodus is on large scale and congested area are coming up rapidly, may give rise to health hazard. Maybe that it may be taken care of by a nursing home. But it is axiomatic that prevention is better then cure. What is lost by removal of a park cannot be gained by establishment of a nursing home. To say, therefore, that by conversion of a site reserved for low lying park into a private nursing home social welfare was being promoted was being oblivious of true character of the two and their utility." In the same case, Thommen, J, observed:- This means that the Bangalore Development Authority may subject to certain restrictions contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), alter the scheme, but such alteration has to be carried out pursuant to a formal decision duly recorded in the manner generally followed by a body corporate. The scheme is a statutory instrument which is administrative legislation involving a great deal of general law-making of universal application, and it is, not, therefore, addressed to individual case of persons and places. Alteration of the scheme must be for the purpose of improvement and better development of the city of Bangalore and adjoining areas and for general application for the benefit of the public at large. Any alteration of the scheme with a view to conferring a benefit on a particular person, and without regard to the general good of the public at large, is not an improvement contemplated by the section." 55. Gaon Sabha of Nasirpur held on 25-2-1984 resolved to grant certain lands vested in it to the petitioners and some other persons for residential purposes on the footing that they were members of the Scheduled Caste beloning to the backward section of the society and did not have residential accommodation. Their lands were thereafter sought to be acquired and on 18.9.1984 a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition was made. Their lands were thereafter sought to be acquired and on 18.9.1984 a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition was made. In the writ petitions Hukam Chand and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 1988 S.C., 408) , it was observed by Ranganath Misra, J., that- "Growth of population and influx thereof into urban areas have among other reasons been making life competitive. The process of such competition excludes the acceptability of the concept of "live and let live." Every one becomes self-centered and does not bother about others in the community. The National Capital suffers a greater hazard in this direction .... It is time that apporpriate attention is devoted to the matter so that city limits are not required to be limitlessly extended. Those who have been living for ages in the neighbouring revenue villages in the non-urban areas are also entitled to consideration and protection as citizens and it is the obligation of Government to extend the umbrella of guarantees and protections to them too. We see no reason as to why these lands should be subjected to acquisition, particularly when it is proposed to be utilised for housing some of the under privileged and economically." 56. Choudhary, J., In T. Damodhar Rao and others v. The Special Officer, Municipal Corporation Hyderabad and ors. ( AIR 1987 A.P. 171 ) , stated : "it is as well that I make it clear that the declarations regarding demarcations of land user contained in development Plan published under statutory authority are neither pious aspirations nor empty promises. Such declarations are legally enforceable. Those declarations impose legal obligations on the landowners and the public authorities.....But those relaxations would be wholly ineffective and inoperative in an area reserved to be used by the development plan solely for recreational purposes. Such relaxations made by the State Government would have been fruitful if made with respect to lands outside the recreational zone where it is permissible to build residential buildings. The above relaxation orders could not be construed as an amendment to the development plan either. Once approved, the development plan can be altered by the well settled statutory method mentioned in Section 12 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975" 57. The above relaxation orders could not be construed as an amendment to the development plan either. Once approved, the development plan can be altered by the well settled statutory method mentioned in Section 12 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975" 57. In Doman Paswan and others v. State of Bihar and others (AIR 1988 Patna 341) , it was observed:- In view of the admitted position that the lands in question, which are subject-matter of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition are within the green belt as shown in the master plan, the lands, therefore, cannot be utilised for any other purpose as is evident from Section 23 of the Development Authority Act...... It is, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to give a detailed finding as to whether the entire area in question which is sought to be acquired comes within the purview of green belt or not. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent No.3 would be entitled to construct houses only in terms of the provisions of the Development Authority Act and provided the same is in tune with the master plan." 58. It is clearly provided in the Master Plan that: "The Green Belt District shall cover all the peripheral areas between the urbanisable limits of 1991 and Jaipur urban area as notified under the Act covering 132 revenue villages. Amber town towards the north and Kanakpura-Bindaika township towards the west shall form part of the Green Belt District. Selected villages lying within the peripheral control belt outside the urbanisable area shall have to be developed to strengthen the rural economy. These proposals shall envisage some degree of control on the use of land in the rural areas. In the absence of any restrictions, people are likely to build in the rural areas in an indiscriminate manner which would not only spoil the rural countryside but may also lead to haphazard and sub-standard urban sprawl outside the urbanisable area. This shall defeat the whole objective of compact and organised urban development. Selected settlement shall therefore be developed as "urban village" and the desired facilities developed therein to provide work opportunities in the rural area. Permissible used within the peripheral control belt may be forestry, cultivation, nurseries, orchards, dairy, poultry etc. A milch cattle colony may also be developed. This shall defeat the whole objective of compact and organised urban development. Selected settlement shall therefore be developed as "urban village" and the desired facilities developed therein to provide work opportunities in the rural area. Permissible used within the peripheral control belt may be forestry, cultivation, nurseries, orchards, dairy, poultry etc. A milch cattle colony may also be developed. Its location shall be governed by the milk feeding area, cattle population and the supply of milch cattle. This and other rural oriented economic activities shall help to reduce migration 'and stabilise rural economy. "59. The plan of Urban Area, 1971 and Planning Zones/ Districts enclosed to the Master Plan will go to show that Govindpura Bas Jhotwara, Gopalpura, Chak Pithawas alias Badarma, Gokalpura, Lawarpura alias Minawala, Bishanwala, Panchiawala, Kanakpura, Lalarpura, Girdharpura, Dhaowas, Mukandpura, Ramgopalpura, Keshopura, Badarwas, Govindpura, Chak Gapatpura alias Govinpura, Nandkishorepura alias Manyawas, Asratpura, Mangiawas, Chak Ganpatpura, Manpura Deori alias Goliawas, Balrampura, Ramsinghpura (Dhalai), Kalyanpura, Bad Mohanpura, Sukhia, Jaitpura, Hajyawala, Madrampura, Bhankrota Kalan, Chimanpura, Singarpura, Ganpatpura are shown in Green Belt District J. They are not shown in residential, commercial or industrial'areas:60. In the draft plan of Prithviraj Nagar submitted for perusal by the learned Advocate General, even green belt areas are shown to be utilised for residential and commercial purposes and for other community facilities and public facilities. Major portion is shown to be utilised for residential purposes. It is clear that areas which are reserved in the Master Plan as green-belt area cannot be-put to land use for residential and commercial purposes either by the Khatedars of land in that area or by the Government of Rajasthan or Jaipur Development Authority. Master Plan has a statutory force and is binding on the citizens as well as the Jaipur Development Authority. Land falling within the green belt cannot, therefore, be acquired by the State Government for the Jaipur Development Authority for its being used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes in the proposed Prithviraj Nagar. It is not the case of the respondents that land falling within the green belt zone J is being acquired for forestry, nurseries, orchard, dairy of poultry etc. or for development of rural economy.61. It is not the case of the respondents that land falling within the green belt zone J is being acquired for forestry, nurseries, orchard, dairy of poultry etc. or for development of rural economy.61. As to Annexures RJ and RK produced on behalf of the respondents, it may be stated that steps for change in the urbanisable limits and consequently in the peripheral control belt (Green Belt) zone limits were initiated by the Jaipur Development Commissioner as late as on 21st November, 1988 and the Deputy Secretary to the State Government on 26th August, 1989 conveyed approval of the State Government for the proposed change and for inclusion of the villages falling in green belt area in the urbanisable limits and for anew peripheral central belt. However, before making any modification to the Master Plan, the J.D.A. has to follow the procedure provided by section 25 of the Act. It has to publish a notice inviting objections to the proposed modifications and has to consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by it. Thereafter modifications made have to be published in the official gazette. This procedure for modification of the master plan has neither been pleaded and nor has been complied with by the J.D.A. Consequently, so long as the Master Plan is not modified by following the procedure provided in section 25 of the Act by the J.D.A., the green belt area shown in the Master Plan and in the site plans annexed thereto cannot legally be made subject matter of acquisition for residential, commercial and industrial purposes and land use cannot be made by the J.D.A. for purposes inconsistent with and contrary to the land use specified in the Master Plan.62. Reference may usefully to made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Hasan Rasul Numa and others v. Union of India and others (1991) 1 S.C.C. 401 , wherein Shetty J., observed:- "Section 11-A of the Act provides procedure for modification to the Master Plan and the Zonal development plan. Sub-Section (3) thereof provides that before making any modifications to any plan the Authority or, as the case may be, the Central Government shall publish a notice inviting objections and suggestions from persons with respect to the proposed modification before the date specified in the notice. Sub-Section (3) thereof provides that before making any modifications to any plan the Authority or, as the case may be, the Central Government shall publish a notice inviting objections and suggestions from persons with respect to the proposed modification before the date specified in the notice. This is to give an opportunity to persons who are likely to be affected by the modification of the plan to file objections and suggestions. Indeed, the interested persons or the persons who are likely to be affected have a right to file their objections and representations within the time specified. They have further right to have the objections considered by the competent authorities.....The provision providing such notice to persons whose rights or interest are likely to be imposed must always be considered as mandatory. As otherwise, it would defeat the very purpose of giving public notice inviting objections and suggestions against the proposed action." 63. It was next contended by some of the petitioners that J.D.A. and the State Government have not acquired the nurseries elsewhere. The nursery of Anand Roses and Pratap Nursery situated in Lal Kothi Area have not been acquired and discrimination cannot be practised relating to them by proceeding to acquire their nurseries. It was not shown to us by the respondents as to why the above two nurseries were not acquired. Legally speaking there is no bar as such against acquisition of land used as nurseries if the land is required for a public purpose. However, if the Master Plan of an area specified a particular area as green-belt, the land cannot, as already held above, be acquired for a purpose contrary to, or inconsistent with the master plan. Obviously, therefore, "nurseries" in the green-belt area cannot be acquired for residential, commercial and industrial use until and unless the master plan is modified by following the procedure prescribed by law and the land on which nurseries exist are excluded from the green-belt zone or green-belt area. That is sufficient to decide the fourth ground taken in some of the writ petitions.64. I shall next examine the contention as to whether the public purpose specified in the instant cases in the notification under section 4 (1) and in the declaration under section 6 of the Acquisition Act is too vague and is no public purpose at all. That is sufficient to decide the fourth ground taken in some of the writ petitions.64. I shall next examine the contention as to whether the public purpose specified in the instant cases in the notification under section 4 (1) and in the declaration under section 6 of the Acquisition Act is too vague and is no public purpose at all. Power of compulsory acquisition of property for public use has been exercised by the State since olden times. Kent speaks of it as an inherent soverign power. As an incident of this power of the State is requirement that property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Broom in his work on constitutional law says: "Next in degree to the right of personal liberty is that of enjoying private property without undue interference of molestation, and the requirement that property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is but an aftirmace of the great doctrine established by the common law for the protection of private property. It is founded in natural equity and is laid down as a principle of universal law." 65. On the continent the power of compulsory acquisition is described by the term "eminent domain". This term had originated in 1625 by Hugo Grotius who wrote of this power in his work "De Jure Belliet Pacis" as follows:- "The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the State, so that the State or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supported to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the State is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property." 66. Vivian Bose, J., in State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and another, AIR 1955 S.C. 41 , dealing with a case of requisition of property in para 11 at page 45 of the reported judgment, observed: "In our opinion, it is not necessary to set out the purpose of the requisition in the order. Vivian Bose, J., in State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji and another, AIR 1955 S.C. 41 , dealing with a case of requisition of property in para 11 at page 45 of the reported judgment, observed: "In our opinion, it is not necessary to set out the purpose of the requisition in the order. The desirability of such a course is obvious because when it is not done proof of the purpose must be given in other ways and that exposes the authorities to the kind of charge we find here and to the danger that the courts will consider them well-founded. But in itself an omission to set out the purpose in the order is not fatal so long as the facts are established to the satisfaction of the court in some other way." 67. The view was reiterated in Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay and others, AIR 1960 S.C. 1203 , in paras 11 and 12 at pp. 1207-08.68. In Pandit Jhandu Lal and others v. The State of Punjab and another AIR 1961 S.C. 343 , the acquisition of land for the construction of a labour colony under the Government sponsored Housing Scheme for Industrial workers of the Thaper Industrial Workers Co-operative Housing Ltd., was held to be for a public purpose as 24 per cent to 50 per cent of the cost of land and structures to be built upon the land was to be advanced by Government out of public funds in the shape of subsidy and loan.69. In Munshi Singh and others v. Union of India, AIR 1973 S.C. 1150 , Grover, J., speaking for the Court, observed: "But the mere words, as are to be found in the notifications here "Planned development of the area" were wholly insufficient and conveyed no idea as to the specific purpose for which the lands were to be utilised. ... The person interested in the land proposed to be acquired must have an opportunity to submit his objections and that he can only if the notification under section (41) while mentioning the public purpose gives some indication or particulars of the said purpose which would enable the persons concerned to object effectively if so desired...... ... The person interested in the land proposed to be acquired must have an opportunity to submit his objections and that he can only if the notification under section (41) while mentioning the public purpose gives some indication or particulars of the said purpose which would enable the persons concerned to object effectively if so desired...... We would accordingly hold that owing to the vagueness and indefiniteness of the public purpose stated in the notification under Section 4(1) and in absence of any proof that the appellants were either aware of or were shown the scheme of the Master Plan in respect of the planned development of the area in question the appellants were wholly unable to object effectively and exercise their right under Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act." 70. Reference may next be made to the decision in Aflatoon and others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, AIR 1974 S.C. 2077 . In that case, a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on November 13, 1959 stating that an area of 34,070 acres of land was needed for a public purpose viz. the planned development of Delhi. Between 1959 and 1961, about six thousand objections were filed under Section 5-A of the Act. The objections were overruled. On March 18, 1966, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in respect of a portion of the area. Therefore, in 1970, notices were issued under Section 9 (1) of the Act requiring the appellants to state their objections, if any, to the assessment of compensation. The appellants thereupon challenged the validity of proceedings for acquistion before the High Court of Delhi on various grounds. His Lordship Mathew, J., dealing with the contention that the public purpose specified in the notification under Section 4 was vague, observed as under: "According to the section, therefore, it is only necessary to state in the notification that the land is needed for a public purpose. The wording of Section 5-A would make it further dear that all that is necessary to be specified in a notification under Section (illegible) is that the land is needed for a public purpose. The wording of Section 5-A would make it further dear that all that is necessary to be specified in a notification under Section (illegible) is that the land is needed for a public purpose. One reason for specification of the particular purpose in the notification is to enable the person whose land is sought to be acquired to file objections under Section 5-A. Unless a person is told about the specific purpose of the acquisition, it may not be possible for him to file a meaningful objection against the acquisition under Section 5-A. This Court has laid down in Munshi Singh v. Union of India (supra) that it is necessary to specify the particular public purpose in the notification for which the land is needed or likely to be needed as, otherwise, the matters specified in sub-section (2) of Section 4 cannot be carried out. We think that the question whether the purpose specified in a notification under Section 4 is sufficient to enable an objection to be filed under Section 5-A would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case ........ In the case of an acquisition of a large area of land comprising several plots belonging of (to) different persons, the specification of the purpose can only be with reference to the acquisition of the whole area, unlike in the case of an acquisition of a small area, it might be practically difficult to specify the particular public purpose for which each and every item of land comprised in the area is needed. Assuming for the moment that the public purpose was not sufficiently specified in the notification, did the apellants make a grievance of it at the appropriate time ? If the appellants had really been prejudiced by the non-specification of the public purpose for which the plots in which they were interested were needed, they should have taken steps to have the notification quashed on that ground within a reasonable time. They did not move in the matter even after the declaration under Section 6 was published in 1966. They aproached the High Court with their writ petitions only in 1970 when the notices under Section 9 were issued to them...... We do not think that the appellants were vigilant. They did not move in the matter even after the declaration under Section 6 was published in 1966. They aproached the High Court with their writ petitions only in 1970 when the notices under Section 9 were issued to them...... We do not think that the appellants were vigilant. That apart the appellants did not contend before the High Court that as the particulars of the public purpose were not specified in the notification issued under Section 4, they were prejudiced in that they could not effectively exercise their right under Section 5-A. As the Plea was not raised by the appellants in the writ petitions filed before the High Court, we do not think that the appellants are entitled to have the plea considered in these appeals........ The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of lathes and delay on the part of the petitioners." 71. In Lila Ram v. Union of India, AIR 1975 S.C. 2112 , the notification under Section 4 of the Act which related to land measuring about 3000 acres, stated that it was likely to be required "for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi". On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the so-called purpose was vague and the notification was liable to be quashed. Khanna, J., speaking for the Court, observed : "Apart from that, we are of the view that public purpose mentioned in the notification, namely, "for the execution of the Interim General Plan for the Greater Delhi" is specific and does not suffer from any vagueness. It is significant that the land covered by the notification is not a small plot but a huge area covering thousands of acres. In such case it is difficult to insist upon greater precision for specifying the public purpose because it is quite possible that various plots covered by the notification may have to be utilised for different purposes set out in the Interim General Plan.". 72. In Babu Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1979 S.C. 1713 , Desai, J., observed "The statement of public purpose under Section 4(1) notification is more comprehensive setting out details of improvement work while the one set out under Section 6(1) notification is more precise and restricted in terms..... 72. In Babu Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1979 S.C. 1713 , Desai, J., observed "The statement of public purpose under Section 4(1) notification is more comprehensive setting out details of improvement work while the one set out under Section 6(1) notification is more precise and restricted in terms..... What the law requires is a broad and understandable statement of public purpose and that is being insisted upon with a view to giving an opportunity to those whose lands are proposed to be acquired, to effectively object the proposed acquisition in an enquiry under Section 5-A". 73. In the cases before us, both the notifications under Section 4(1) and that under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act specify the "public purpose" in identical language as under: "Jaipur Development Authority requires the lands and buildings for the discharge of its functions and for implementation of development programmes." Now the Jaipur Development Authority has got varied functions to discharge as detailed in clauses (a) to (s) of Section 16 of the Act. Which of its functions detailed in clauses (a) to (s) of the said section, the J.D.A. wanted to discharge is not, at all, clear from the contents of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The expression "for implementation of Development Programme" is also vague. Development can be of various types, like, by carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in or over or under any land and it includes re-development and A.I and sub-division of any land and also the provision of amenities and projects and schemes for development of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, dairy development, poultry farming, piggery cattle breeding, fisheries and other similar activities. Development programme can also be execution of projects and schemes, undertaking housing activity in Jaipur Region, Urban renewal, environment, transport and communication and various purposes specified under Sections 13(3), 16, 21(2), 22(2), 28(2) and 39(5) of the Act. The notifications do not specify as to for what purposes and what development programmes is intended to be carried out. The public purpose specified in the notification under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant cases is wholly vague and in relation to such vague public purpose, it is not possible for the persons interested to effectively make representation under Section 5-A of the Act as against the proposed acquisition. The public purpose specified in the notification under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant cases is wholly vague and in relation to such vague public purpose, it is not possible for the persons interested to effectively make representation under Section 5-A of the Act as against the proposed acquisition. In such circumstances even the conclusiveness provided by Section 6(3) of the Acquisition Act will be of no value. It is true that, as held in Babu Barkya Thakur's case ( AIR 1960 SC 1203 ), Bhanji Munji's case ( AIR 1955 SC 41 ) and Smt. Somawanti and others v. State of Punjabi, AIR 1963 SC 151 , declarations that lands are needed for a public purpose are pleaded. But where particular purpose is not specified, the proof of public purpose has to be given in other way for the satisfaction of the Court. In the instant cases all that has been shown is that a draft plan for Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme was prepared, but as already stated that scheme was not finalised and was not even finally published by the JDA before the notification under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Acquisition Act were published by the State Government. The acquisition proceedings before finalisation of the schemes and their final publication are pre-mature and do not show any public purpose.74. Various decided cases of their Lordships of the Supreme Court go to show that where public purpose was specified as "for the acquisition of the general interim plan for Greater Delhi", "Development and utilisation of the lands as industrial and residential area in Bombay", "for development and expansion of Delhi" and "the planned development of Delhi" were held to be for a specified public purpose but where the public purpose specified was only "planned development of the area" the same was held not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of law in Munshi Singh and others v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1150 . The notifications issued in the present cases are on the line that were issued in Munshi Singh's case (supra) and that also pre-maturely before finalisation and publication of final project or scheme in the manner specified in Section 39(4) and (5) of the Act.75. The notifications issued in the present cases are on the line that were issued in Munshi Singh's case (supra) and that also pre-maturely before finalisation and publication of final project or scheme in the manner specified in Section 39(4) and (5) of the Act.75. I, therefore, hold that the public purpose mentioned in the notification under Section 4(l) and in the declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act by the State Government are too vague and general and the respondents have failed to establish that there was any final scheme or project of Prithvi Raj Nagar finalised by the JDA and published in accordance with law.76. I shall next deal with the contention regarding publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act by various modes provided for in the section. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, it is quite clear that the notification under Section 4(l) of the Acquisition Act was dated January 6, 1988. However, it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 7, 1988 i.e. after about six months of the date of notification. According to some of the petitioners, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act was first published in local newspaper Rashtradoot daily on 2nd July, 1988. It was then published in another newspaper Navbharat Times on 4th July, 1988. Thereafter it was published in Rajasthan Gazette on 7th July, 1988. It is further stated that notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act was issued on 28th July, 1989 and was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 31st July, 1989. The notification under Section 6 was thus not published within a period of one year from the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. On this basis it was urged that the notification under Section 6 of the Act is illegal and entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. According to the respondents, publication in newspaper in Rajasthan Patrika of the notification under Section 4(1) was made on 2nd July, 1988 and thereafter publication of the notification in Rajasthan Gazette was made on 7th July, 1988. The corrigendum of the newspaper publication was also published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 22nd September, 1988. It was also pleaded that a public notice regarding the substance of the notification was also affixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the locality on 6th August, 1988. The corrigendum of the newspaper publication was also published in Rajasthan Patrika dated 22nd September, 1988. It was also pleaded that a public notice regarding the substance of the notification was also affixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the locality on 6th August, 1988. In this regard Annex. R/2 and Annex.R/3 have been produced by the respondents. It is stated that the period of one year is to be counted from the last date of publication and as the corrigendum was published in Rajasthan Patrika on 22nd September, 1988, the period of one year is to be counted from 22nd September, 1988 or in any event from 6th August, 1988 when the public notice was pasted on the Notice Board. From that date the declaration published under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was within one year.77. As stated Babu Barkya Thakur's case ( AIR 1960 SC 1203 ), "the proceedings begin with a Government notification under Section 4 that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose".78. In Smt. Somwanti and others v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1963 SC 151 ) , it was observed "a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the making of notification under Sub-sec. (1) of Section 6..... Where acquisition is being made after following the normal procedure the notification under Section 6(1) will necessarily have to be published subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1) because in such a case the observance of the procedure under Section 5-A is interposed to the two notifications."79. Reference ma also be made to the decision in Narindrajit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 552 , wherein the Grover J., observed as under : "It is common ground that the Collector did not cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be acquired was situated. In other words there was no compliance whatsoever with the second part of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. The law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of Section 40) is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. In other words there was no compliance whatsoever with the second part of Sub-section (1) of Section 4. The law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of Section 40) is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. We may refer in this connection to Khub Chand v. The State of Rajasthan, ( 1967 (1) SCR 120 . In that case this court pointed out that the object is to give intimation to a person whose land is sought to be acquired of the intention of the officer to enter the land. Under Section 4(2) such a notice is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry. Non-compliance with that condition makes the entry unlawful. In State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, (1972) CA 2361 of 1968 , no notices as required by Section 4(1) of the Act were published in the locality till after the lapse of about 10 weeks. The question for consideration was whether the notification issued under Section 4 was a valid one. This court held that in the case of a notification under Section 4 the law has prescribed that in addition to publication of a notice in the official gazette the Collector must also give publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, Section 4 of the Act cannot be said to have been complied with. The purpose behind such a notice was that interested persons should know that the land is being acquired so as to prefer any objections under Section 5-A which confers a valuable right." 80. In Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1984 SC 1721 , it was observed by the Supreme Court that : "It may be noticed at once that Section 4(1) does not prescribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or immediately thereafter. Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be taken under Section 4(1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering upon the land under Section 4(2). Publication in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be taken under Section 4(1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering upon the land under Section 4(2). The time factor is not a vital element of Section 4(1) and there is no warrant for reading the words 'simultaneously' or 'immediately thereafter' into Section 4(1)........But since the steps contemplated by Section 4(2) cannot be undertaken unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated by Section 4(1), it is implicit that the publication and the public notice be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediately after one another. Naturally contemporaneity may involve a gap of time and by the very nature of the things, the publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality must necessarily be separated by a gap of time. This does not mean that the publication and the public notice may be separated by a long interval of time. What is necessary, is that the continuity of action should not appear to be broken by a deep gap." 81. In the Collector (Distt. Magistrate) Allahabad and another v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 , Desai, J., made the following observations : "However, as a notification under Section 4(1) initiates the proceedings for acquisition of land and uses the expression 'shall' the mandate of the legislature becomes dear and, therefore, the infirmities therein cannot be wholly overlooked on the spacious plea that the Courts do not interdict at the stage of a mere proposal.......Mr. Kacker urged that if the underlying purpose behind publication of a notice in the locality is to give an opportunity to the person interested in the land to object to the acquisition, where in a case the purpose is achieved as in this case the petitioner having filed his objections, the failure to publish the substance of the notification in the locality need not be treated fatal and cannot invalidate the proceedings. The submission as presented is very persuasive and but for binding precedents, we would have accorded considerable attention to it. But we would not whittle down a mandate of legislation recognised by a long line of decisions solely depending upon the facts of a given case. The submission as presented is very persuasive and but for binding precedents, we would have accorded considerable attention to it. But we would not whittle down a mandate of legislation recognised by a long line of decisions solely depending upon the facts of a given case. Further the submission is predicated upon an assumption that the sole purpose behind publication of substance of notification in locality is to make requirements of Section 5A functionally effective.... This is a mandatory requirement for legal compliance with the requirements of Section 4(1) ......At least we have no doubt that the only visible and demonstrable purpose behind publication of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situated, is to give the persons interested in the land due opportunity to submit their considered objections against the proposed notification." 82. Dealing with the question where there can be a publication in the locality prior to the issuance of a notification, the learned Judge made the following observations:- "Assuming that a notification in the Official Gazette is a formal expression of the decision of the Government, the decision of the Government is hardly relevant unless it takes the concrete shape and form by publication in the Official Gazette. Where a decision of the Government to be effective and valid has to be notified in the Government Gazette, the decision itself does not become effective unless a notification in the Official Gazette follows .... Section 4(1) further requires that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The expression 'such notification' in the latter part of Section 4(1) and sequence of events therein enumerated would dearly spell out that first the Government should reach a decision to acquire land, then publish a notification under Section 4(1) and simultaneously or within a reasonable time from the date of the publication of the notification cause a notice to be published containing substance of such notification meaning thereby that notification which is published. Obviously, therefore, there cannot be a publication in the locality prior to the issuance of the notification ...... If the only purpose behind publishing the notice in the locality was to give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land to file their objections the submission would have merited consideration.... Obviously, therefore, there cannot be a publication in the locality prior to the issuance of the notification ...... If the only purpose behind publishing the notice in the locality was to give an opportunity to the persons interested in the land to file their objections the submission would have merited consideration.... To be brutally frank if this was the only ground for invalidating the notification, in the backdrop of facts we would have our serious reservations in upholding the decision, though as the law stands, the High Court was perfectly justified in reaching this conclusion. Our reservations have nothing to do with the perfectly legal view taken by the High Court. They stem from the facts of this case and our understanding of the purpose behind publication of notice as set out by us earlier. In such a situation, we would have developed the concept of prejudice and the absence of it resulting in negativing the contention. But there are other formidable challenges to the validity of the impugned notification, which of course have not found favour with the High Court but we are inclined to take a different view of the matter. Therefore we let the decision of the High Court on this point stand." 83. In Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 , the affidavit of the Land Acquisition Officer was that the publicity of the substance of the notification was made in concerned locality of village Dundahera through Shri Chattar Singh, Chowkidar with loud voice and beating of empty tin. The report existed in Roznamcha at serial No. 519 dated 6th July, 1981. Similarly, the publicity was made in concerned locality of village Mulahera through Shri Surjan Singh, Chowkidar with loud voice and beating of empty tin. A report to this effect existed in Roznamha Vakyati at serial No. 520 dated 6.7.81. The publicity was made on this very day on which the notification was issued. In response to this publicity 157 land-owners filed objection-applications which clearly shows that due publicity was made in the concerned locality.84. Their Lordships held that from this affidavit, it was apparent that substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the concerned localities of villages Dundahera and Mulahera. In response to this publicity 157 land-owners filed objection-applications which clearly shows that due publicity was made in the concerned locality.84. Their Lordships held that from this affidavit, it was apparent that substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was published in the concerned localities of villages Dundahera and Mulahera. It was, however, urged on behalf of the appellants that it was not at all possible to make entries in the Roznamha as to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) on the same day it was published in both the villages. This contention was rejected and his Lordship Dutta, J. observed : "We are afraid, we are unable to accept the contention. Apart from the statement that there was publication of the notification, there is a further statement in paragraph 8 that pursuant to such publication, 157 land-owners filed objections to the proposed acquisition.... In each of these objection-petitions there is a note at the end which reads as follows : 'Note : The above referred notification was announced by the beat of drum in the village Dundahera on 6.7.81, vide Patwari's Roznamha Report No. 519 dated 6.7.1981." Similar notes, as extracted above, are there in the petitions of objections filed by the land-owners of village, Mulahera. In view of the facts stated above, the allegations of the appellants that the substance of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act was not published in the localities of the two villages mentioned above, is without any foundation whatsoever." 85. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: "Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed in any public purpose.... A notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification." 86. The last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification." 86. A going-through of Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act would go to show that so far as notification is concerned, the notification as such has to be published by the appropriate Government in Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality. The third publication is neither to be made by the appropriate Government and nor the publication is required of the notification as such. The publication in the locality is caused to be made in the form of a public notice by the Collector and the publication is not of the notification as such but of the substance of the notification and this public notice is required to be given at convenient places in the locality. For determining the date of publication of the notification, the last of the date of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers and giving of the public notice at convenient places in the locality, the last of the dates whether of publication or giving of public notice is the basis. As laid down in the Collector (Distt. Magistrate) Allahabad and another v. Raja Ram Jaiswal (supra), the decision of the appropriate Government is hardly relevant, unless it takes the concrete shape and form by publication in the Official Gazette. After a notification takes the concrete shape and form, then only in can be published in the Official Gazette and as such in two daily newspapers. Unless the notification takes a concrete shape and form, neither it could be published in the Official Gazette and nor in two daily newspapers and nor public notice of the substance of the notification can be given by the Collector at convenient places in the locality. It appears that in the instant case the notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act had taken a concerete shape and form on January 6,1988 which is the date of the notification and which is signed by the Dy. Secretary to the Government by order of the Government. It appears that in the instant case the notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act had taken a concerete shape and form on January 6,1988 which is the date of the notification and which is signed by the Dy. Secretary to the Government by order of the Government. It might be that the Government Press took unreasonably long time in actually publishing the notification, which had taken a concrete shape and form in the Official Gazette, after 6 months of the date of its issue by the Government, but once the notification had taken a concrete shape and form and was ready for publication in the Official Gazette, that notification could be published in two daily newspapers. Mere fact, therefore, that publication of the notification in two daily newspapers had taken place earlier than the day on which the notification was actually appended and published in the Official Gazette would not be fatal to the acquisition and more so when several petitioners had filed objections under Section 5A of the Acquisition Act on the basis of the publication in the newspapers as a whole. In Raja Ram's case (supra) their Lordships had developed the concept of prejudice and the absence of it on the basis of the filing objections by the petitioners.87. The only material question which remains to be decided under this issue is whether the Collector had caused public notice of the substance of the notification given at convenient places in the locality. In present cases, lands situated in not less than 21 villages were sought to be acquired. These 21 villages are differently situated and within two Tehsils of Jaipur and Sanganer. In the reply the respondents have stated that a public notice regarding acquistion proceedings was also affixed under the order dated 4th August, 1988 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in which it was directed to Tehsildars of Sanganer and Jaipur to affix the notice on the Notice Board for information of the general public and on 5th August, 1988 the aforesaid notice was pasted on the Notice Board. Certified copy of the order dated 4th August, 1988 alongwith the alleged endorsement of pasting of the notice on the Notice board has been enclosed as Annex. R/2 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as Annes. R/3 by JDA. Certified copy of the order dated 4th August, 1988 alongwith the alleged endorsement of pasting of the notice on the Notice board has been enclosed as Annex. R/2 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as Annes. R/3 by JDA. Annexures R/2 and R/3 are office copy of the letter sent by Shri Shameem, Land Acquisition Officer to Tehsildars of Sanganer and Jaipur dated 4th August, 1988. In this letter, the Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned that land of all Khasra numbers of villages falling under Prithviraj Nagar Scheme of the JDA is to be acquired and a list of the same was being sent. It was directed that the same may be pasted on the Notice Board of Tehsil for the information of the public. It was also stated that notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act has already been published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 7th May, 1988. On the back of this document there is an endorsement made by one Govind on 5th August, 1988 that the enclosed list to the letter of the JDA has been pasted for perusal of the general public. There is another endorsement to the same effect signed by Vidhyadhar and Santosh on 5th August, 1988. From these endorsements, it is not clear as to who these Govind, Vidhyadhar and Santosh were. It is also not clear on what Notice Board the lists were pasted. It is further clear that substance of the notification was not enclosed by the Land Acquisition Officer and only some list was enclosed. Alongwith Annex. R/2 and R/3, no office copy of their enclosures has been produced by the respondents and it has not been established that the substance of the notification was also enclosed. Apart from that, pasting of list containing names of villages and Khasra numbers of lands on the Notice Board of Tehsils, when lands sought to be acquired are situated in 21 villages lying within two separate Tehsils, cannot by any stretch be held to be causing of public notice of the substance of the notification as having been given at convenient places in the locality. The public notice should have been given by the Land Acquisition Officer in each and every village i.e. in each and every of the 21 villages at convenient places in the villages, and by beat of drum in those villages. The public notice should have been given by the Land Acquisition Officer in each and every village i.e. in each and every of the 21 villages at convenient places in the villages, and by beat of drum in those villages. Mere affixing of a list on the Notice Boards of two Tehsils cannot be held to be giving of notice at convenient places in the locality. The object of giving public notice is that each and every villager may come to know about the intention of the Government to acquire the land in the locality alongwith Khasra numbers of the land intended to be acquired. That object can only be achieved by pasting the substance of the notification at convenient places in each village and by beat of drums and not simply by pasting a list on the Notice Boards of two Tehsils. In Bharat Singh's case (supra), the substance of the notification was given publicity in concerned locality of two villages by village Chowkidar by loud voice and beating of empty tin. Nothing of the sort was done in the present case. I am, therefore, of the view that second part of the mandatory requirements of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was not complied with by Land Acquisition Officer.88. It may be mentioned here that as late as on 24-1-92, the learned Addl. Advocate General filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4238 of 1989 (Shyam Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others) affidavits of eleven persons regarding the causing of public notices being given of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act at convenient places in the localities. Raj Behari Sharma, formerly Patwari in the Land Acquisition Cell of J.D.A. has filed affidavit to the effect that in accordance with the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer, he had despatched on 30-8-1988 the notification regarding Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme and letter inviting objections and that entry in the despatch register is in his handwriting. Raj Behari Sharma, formerly Patwari in the Land Acquisition Cell of J.D.A. has filed affidavit to the effect that in accordance with the orders of the Land Acquisition Officer, he had despatched on 30-8-1988 the notification regarding Prithvi Raj Nagar Scheme and letter inviting objections and that entry in the despatch register is in his handwriting. The same were despatched to Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats Gokulpura, Chak Peethawas, Panchiyawala, Lawas alias Meenawala, Bishnawala, Beer Khatipura, Girdharipura, Heerapura, Lalarpura, Dhauwas, Manpur Devri alias Goliawas, Balrampura and Kalyanpura and Panchayat Samities Jhotwara and Sanganer Radhey Shyam Sharma has deposed that he was U.D.C. in Panchayat Samiti, Sanaganer, that the letter dated 30-8-1988 that notice regarding acquisition of land received by the Land Acquisition Officer was despatched by him to all Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayats and Gram Sewaks under Panchayat Samiti, Sanganer. Rameshwar Prashad Sharma, Ajai Kumar Kaushik, Khema Ram Arya and Badri Narain Dinkar have filed affidavits regarding affixing of the notices regarding acquisition of lands with names of villages and Khasra numbers on the Notice Boards of Panchayat Bhawans. Suraj Behari Mathur, Santosh Kumar, Vidhyadhar, Jagdish Parshad and Govind Ram have filed affidavits regarding affixing such notices on the Notice Boards of Tehsils Jaipur and Sanganer. It may be stated that it was not even the case of the respondents in their reply that any notifications were pasted on the Notice-Board of Panchayat Bhawans. For notices pasted on the Notice Boards of Tehsils, it has already been stated above that it did not fulfil the requirement of law of giving public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality. Copy of the public notice incorporating the substance of the notification under Section 4(1), which is stated to have been sent alongwith Annex. R/3, has not been produced by the respondents. Related affidavits regarding pasting of notices at Panchayat Bhawans are clearly an after-thought and cannot be accepted, moreso when this case was not even set up by the respondents in their reply.89. R/3, has not been produced by the respondents. Related affidavits regarding pasting of notices at Panchayat Bhawans are clearly an after-thought and cannot be accepted, moreso when this case was not even set up by the respondents in their reply.89. Learned Advocate General, however, submitted for the perusal of the Court various lists showing in a statement form that various petitioners in these writ petitions had submitted their objections under Section 5-A after coming to know of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the Rajasthan Gazette and in newspapers and also the files of these objections maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer and it was contended by him that no prejudice was caused to any of the petitioners by some irregularities in the publishing of the public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality. I would have accepted the concept of "want of prejudice" advanced by the learned Advocate General on account of detailed objections under Section 5-A already filed by various petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer in pursuance of knowledge acquired by them through the notification under Section 4(l) published in the newspapers and the Official Gazette, had this been the only attack on the validity of acquisition proceedings made by the petitioners. I, however, repeat the observations made by Desai, J., in the Collector (Distt. Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal : "To be brutally frank if this was the only ground for invalidating the notification in the backdrop of facts. We would have our serious reservations in upholding the decision..... In such a situation, we would have developed the concept of prejudice and the absence of it in negativing the contention. But there are other formidable challenges to the validity of the impugned notification". So also in the present writ petitions there are other formidable challenges like acquisition being contrary to Master Plan and non-finalisation and publication of the Prithviraj Nagar Scheme by the J.D.A. etc., and, therefore, I allow the legal interpretation to stand as it is.90. Proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act provides that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a Notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. Proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act provides that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a Notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. In view of the finding that public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) at convenient places in the locality was not given by the Land Acquisition Officer, declaration under Section 6(1) could not be issued. In this view of the matter, it becomes unnecessary to go into the question of the expiry of more than one year's period between the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6(1).91. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that declaration under Section 6(1) could be issued by the State Government only when it was satisfied, after considering the report if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2) that any particular land was needed for a public purpose. It was argued that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act issued by the State Government in instant cases does not use any expression showing satisfaction of the State Government. The declaration under Section 6(1) only uses the expression "it appears to the State Government" and as such the declaration is of no consequence. This contention stands adequately answered by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ganga Bishnu Swaika and another v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society, AIR 1968 S.C. 615 . His Lordship Shelat, J., observed:- "But there is nothing in sub-section (1) which requires that such satisfaction need be stated in the notification. The only declaration required by sub-section (1) is that the land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose or for a company ...... The contention therefore, that it is imperative that the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6 is not correct..... The only declaration required by sub-section (1) is that the land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose or for a company ...... The contention therefore, that it is imperative that the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6 is not correct..... There being thus no statutory form and Section 6 not requiring the declaration to be made in any particular form, the mere fact that the notification does not ex-fade show the government's satisfaction, assuming that the words "it appears" used in the notification do not mean satisfaction would not rtnu:er the notification invalid or not in conformity with Section 6". 92. Next ground taken by the petitioners is that they had submitted objections under Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act, but, no opportunity of hearing was ever offered to them, nor were these objections considered or even dealt with in the alleged report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government. It was argued that the State Government without application of mind, published the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The declaration is, therefore, invalid. The case of the respondents is that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act were fully complied with and camps were held for hearing the objections under Section 5-A on different dates and prior notices for the same were issued. Annexure R-3/ 1 has been produced to show the dates on which camps were fixed to be held on various dates from 4-11-88 to 22-11-88 in various villages to hear the objections. The learned Advocate General also submitted for perusal of the Court some files of the objections preferred by some of the petitioers and the dates fixed for hearing. He also submitted some files containing the reports of the Land Acquisition Officer made to the State Government. The files submitted go to show that Khatedas and some housing societies had filed objections under Section 5-A mostly on 2-9-88. In the objections filed by various Khatedars and Societies, they had taken all the objections which have been taken in these writ petitions. The objections were heard in camps held in villages. The Land Acquisition Officer sent his reports and recommendations to the State Government. In the objections filed by various Khatedars and Societies, they had taken all the objections which have been taken in these writ petitions. The objections were heard in camps held in villages. The Land Acquisition Officer sent his reports and recommendations to the State Government. After the State Government issued the notification under Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer in several cases prepared his award and submitted the same to the State Government for approval. Awards were approved by the State Government but some awards could not be pronounced on account of stay orders obained by several petitioners from this Court. There are some cases in which awards have also been given. In some matters, further proceedings in hearing of objections are stayed. It appeared on going through the reports made by the Land Acquisition Officer that he reproduced the various objections taken by the objectors and recommended the matters to the State Government for acquisition of lands situated in various villages. Section 5-A(2) of the Acquisition Act inter alia provides that "the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard.....and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary either make a report or make different reports".93. In Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, 1975 4 SCC 298 , Mathew, J., observed: The duty to afford such an opportunity is mandatory. A decision by the Government on the objection, when the Collector afforded no opportunity of being heard to the objector, would not be proper. The power to hear the objection under Section 5-A is that of the Collector and not of the appropriate Government. It is no doubt true that the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer is not binding on the Government. The Government may choose either the recommendation or to reject it, but the requirement of the Section is that when a person's property is proposed to be acquired, he must be given an opportunity to show cause against it. Merely because the Govt. may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer, even he makes one, it cannot be said that he need not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Govt. to decide the matter. Merely because the Govt. may not choose to accept the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer, even he makes one, it cannot be said that he need not make the recommendation at all but leave it to the Govt. to decide the matter. In other words the fact that the Collector is not the authority to decide the objection dues not exonerate him from his duty to hear the objector on the objection and make the recommendation". 94. The same view was reiterated in Farid Ahmed v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, 1976 3 SCC 719 . From the facts stated above it is clear that before making his recommendation the Land Acquisition Officer had given opportunity to the objectors of hearing and had thus complied with the mandate of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.95. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioners that the State Government, without application of its mind, published the declaration under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act. In Smt. Somawanti and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 S.C. 151 , Mudhalkar J., speaking for the majority observed : The Act has empowered the Government to determine the question of the need of land for a public purpose or for a company and the jurisdiction conferred upon it to do so is not made conditional upon the existence of a collateral or extraneous fact. It is the existence of the need for a public purpose which gives jurisdiction to the Government to make a declaration under Section 6(1) and makes it the sole judge whether there is in fact a need and whether the purpose for which there is that need is a public purpose. The provisions of Sub-sec. (3) preclude a court from ascertaining whether either of these ingredients of the declaration exits ....................... Now whether in a particular case the purpose for which land is needed is a public purpose or not is for the State Government to be satisfied about. If the purpose for which the land is being required by the State is within the legislature competence of the State the declaration of the Government will be final subject, however to one exception. That exception is that if there is a colourable exercise of power the declaration will be open to challenge at the instance of the aggrieved party. If the purpose for which the land is being required by the State is within the legislature competence of the State the declaration of the Government will be final subject, however to one exception. That exception is that if there is a colourable exercise of power the declaration will be open to challenge at the instance of the aggrieved party. The power committed to the Government by the Act is a limited power in the sense that it can be exercised only where there is a public purpose. If it appears that what the Government is satisfied about is not a public purpose but a private purpose or no purpose at all the action of the Government would be colourable as not being relatable to the power conferred upon it by the Act and its declaration will be a nullity. Subject to this exception the declaration of the Government will be final .............................. Though we are of the opinion that the Courts are not entitled to go behind the declaration of the Government to the effect that a particular purpose for which the land is being acquired is a public purpose, we must emphasise that the declaration of the Government must be relatable to a public purpose as distinct from a purely private purpose. If the purpose for which the acquisition is being made is not relatable to public purpose then a question may well arise whether in making the declaration there has been on the part of the Government a fraud on the power conferred upon it by the Act. In other words the question would then arise whether that declaration was merely a colourable exercise of the power conferred by the Act, and, therefore, the declaration is open to challenge at the instance of the party aggrieved. To such a declaration the protection of Section 6(3) will not extend. For, the question whether a particular action was the result of a fraud or not is always justiciable provisions, such as Section 6(3) notwithstanding". To such a declaration the protection of Section 6(3) will not extend. For, the question whether a particular action was the result of a fraud or not is always justiciable provisions, such as Section 6(3) notwithstanding". See also Vijaibhai Muljibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 S.C. 1890 , Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 S.C. 1081 , Ganga Bishan Swaika & others v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society & others, AIR 1968 S.C. 615 , Ratilal Shanker Bhai v. State to of Gujarat, AIR 1970 S.C. 984 , Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1033 , Inderjit C. Prakash v. State AIR, 1975 S.C. 1182 , and Land Acquisition Collector v. Durga Pada, AIR 1980 S.C. 319 . 96. Krishna Iyer, J., in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh and others, AIR 1980 S.C. 319 , clarified test to determine malice as under: Pithily put, bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power sometimes called colourable exercise or fraud on power and of end times overlaps motives, passions and satisfaction is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the power is for the fulfilment of a legitimate object the actuation or catalysation by malice is not regicidal. The action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment. When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. In a good, blurred sense, Benjamin Disraeli was not off the mark even in law when he stated "I repeat..... that all power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist". Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide for the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to affect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice - lad on or even benign. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to affect some object which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be malice - lad on or even benign. If the purpose is corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute enter the verdict or impels the action, mala fides or fraud on power vitiates the acquisition or other official act". 97. In the Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another v. Raja Ram Jaswal, AIR 1985, S.C. 1622 , the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan attempted to prevent the construction of a cinema theatre on the land in dispute which was in the vicinity of its institution. Since it failed in its attempt, it sought to acquire the land for constructing a museum. It was in evidence that the Sammelan had already open lands for a long time for this purpose and it was kept unutilised. Desai J., speaking for the Court, held that the acquisition was mala fide. He observed : "It is well settled that where power is conferred to achieve a certain purpose, Inc power can be exercised only for achieving that purpose...... May the authority of the Sammelan may honestly believe that the existence of a cinema theatre may have the pernicious tendency to vitiate the educational and cultural environment of the institution and, therefore, it would like to wish away a cinema theatre in its vicinity. That hardly constitutes public purpose.... It can be fairly concluded that the Sammelan was actuated by extraneous and irrelevant considerations in seeking acquisition of the land and the statutory authority having known this fact yet proceeded to exercise statutory power and initiated the process of acquisition ........... Where power is exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations or reasons, it is unquestionally a colourable exercise of power or fraud on power and the exercise of power is vitiated. If the power to acquire land is to be exercised, it must be exercised bonatide for the statutory purpose and for none other. If it is exercised for an extraneous irrelevant or non-germane consideration the acquiring authority can be charged 'with legal mala fides. If the power to acquire land is to be exercised, it must be exercised bonatide for the statutory purpose and for none other. If it is exercised for an extraneous irrelevant or non-germane consideration the acquiring authority can be charged 'with legal mala fides. In such a situation there is no question of any personal ill-will or motive." In present cases, these factors make the exercise of the powers under Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act by the State Government as a colourable exercise of power. Firstly, the public purpose specified in the notification is too vague. Secondly, Prithviraj Nagar Scheme had neither been finalised by the JDA nor the final scheme was published before the issue of notification under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Acquisition Act and not even uptill now. Lastly, contravention is being made of the Master Plan. There may not be question of any personal ill will or motive but the power is being exercised prematurely i.e. before the satisfaction and fulfilment of the basic conditions of its exercise and it amounts to fraud on the exercise of power wasted in the State Government by the statute. That vitiates the notification under Section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act.98. On behalf of some of the petitioners, it was submitted that in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act lands comprised in various Khasra numbers were sought to be acquired, but in the declaration under Section 6(1) lands comprised in several Khasra numbers were left out in a very arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The petitioners in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4238 of 1989 (Shyam Pratap Singh Rathore & others v. State of Rajasthan & others) , have stated in para-21 of the writ petition that in Village-Gajsinghpura, 149 khasra numbers were proposed to be acquired through notification, under section 4(1), but, lands comprised in 37 khasra numbers, i.e. Nos. 16 to 20, 26 to 35, 55, 64, 67, 82 to 90, 117, 119, 132, 133 to 138 and 149 have been omitted from the declaration under section 6(1) of the Acquisition Act. I have gone through the reports of the Land Acquisition Officer, pertaining to these 37 khasara numbers. As regards lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 55,64,67,78,87, 119,139,141 and some parts of Nos. I have gone through the reports of the Land Acquisition Officer, pertaining to these 37 khasara numbers. As regards lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 55,64,67,78,87, 119,139,141 and some parts of Nos. 89 & 90, it was reported in the survey report of JDA that they were already Government land having the classification and part of it was with Rajasthan State Electricity Board . Hence, their acquisition was not recommended. As regards lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 16 & 17, it was represented that the same stands already acquired by RSEB for establishing 220 KV Grid Station. It was under this circumstance that its acquisition was not recommended. Land comprised in Khasra Nos. 19 & 20 was in the khatedari of PWD, as road. Other lands were also not recommended for acquisition on rational grounds. It cannot, therefore be said that lands in village-Gajsinghpura were left out from acquisition in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.99. On behalf of some of the petitioners, it was contended that under Article 21 of the Constitution, right to life includes right to livelihood. Lands situated in about 20 villages are being sought to be acquired. Poor agriculturists would be turned out from their agricultural holdings. A great human problem would arise inasmuch as the State Government has not proposed any rehabilitation programme for the ousted. By dint of hard labour 'nurseries' have been developed in green-belt area. In acquisitions of lands made in other areas of Jaipur, nurseries have been excepted from acquisition, but, in the present case, they are being acquired in a discriminatory manner.100. As already observed, the State can acquire property of citizens for public purpose and on payment of compensation to the owner for its loss. In acquisitions of lands made in other areas of Jaipur, nurseries have been excepted from acquisition, but, in the present case, they are being acquired in a discriminatory manner.100. As already observed, the State can acquire property of citizens for public purpose and on payment of compensation to the owner for its loss. Assessment of suitability of land for acquisition is the concern of the Land Acquisition Officer and discretion to select land for public purpose vests in the Government subject to the condition that there should not be colourable exercise of power, mala fides, fraud on the statute and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (see State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319 ); Ramgir Uttamgir Goswami v. State of Gujarat and another, (1988) 1 SCC 466 ; Smt. Somawanti and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151 ; Vijaibhai Muljibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1890 ; Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1081 ; and Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, AIR 1985 SC 1622 ) .101. In Ram Pratap v. The State of Rajasthan, 1979 RLW 426 , land of one nursery was de-acquired, whereas, the land of other nursery was not de-acquired, and therefore, it was held that it was a case of discrimination.102. It may be mentioned that there is no legal bar that land having nurseries cannot be acquired for public purpose. Here, it is not a case where land of one nursery has, in a discriminatory manner, not been acquired, and the others are being acquired. As a matter of fact, several of the present writ petitions are of the type where lands or areas earmarked in the Master-Plan as green-belt area or zone are being acquired for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. That cannot be done by the State Government as it is contrary to its own master-plan . This aspect of the matter has already been dealt with and discussed above, and need not be repeated.103. That cannot be done by the State Government as it is contrary to its own master-plan . This aspect of the matter has already been dealt with and discussed above, and need not be repeated.103. As to rehabilitation of ousted persons on account of acquisition of lands, suffice it to state that to do Justice in such cases, their Lordships of the Supreme Court gave directions for allotment of plot of land under the scheme to land-owners who become landless on account of acquisition of their lands (see Union of India v. K.K. Chopra, AIR 1988 SC 2036 ; Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 ; and S.B. Kishore v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 90 . That direction can also be issued in these cases. Payment of compensation and allotment of plot of land to ousted land-owners/khatedars are sufficient to prevent any violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Housing cooperative societies. 104. Some of the writ petitions have been filed by Housing Co-operative Societies and also by Jaipur Nagar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samitiyan Association as representative body of Housing Cooperative Societies, specified in Schedule-A, annexed to SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3402 of 1991.105. Jaipur is the Capital-City of Rajasthan, and hence a developing city. Migration to this city from other urban as well as rural parts of the State, is far greater than other cities and towns of this State. How best it can be checked within reasonbable limits ought to be the concern of the State Government, and the courts have practically no role to play in it. Urban improvement and development has been entrusted to statutory bodies and authorities with the aid of Town Planning Department. Under the Improvement Act of 1959, Board of Trustees called Improvement Trust are constituted for urban areas. The very use of the word, "Trust" indicates that trustees of the Improvement Trusts are under statutory duty to discharge the trust created in them by the statute for speedily framing schemes for the improvement of urban areas and speedily implementing them. The mental concentration of the State Government should not only remain confined to Section 9 of the Improvement Act of 1959 or to Section 4 of the JDA Act which respectively deal with constitution and composition of Improvement Trusts and Jaipur Development Authority. The mental concentration of the State Government should not only remain confined to Section 9 of the Improvement Act of 1959 or to Section 4 of the JDA Act which respectively deal with constitution and composition of Improvement Trusts and Jaipur Development Authority. Rather, the prime concentration ought to be towards speedy making and contents of projects and schemes and their speedy and time-bound implementation. The Trusts and the JDA should be accountable for the discharge of the trust reposed in them by the statute for the improvement and development of urban area for the Ultimate good of people. The Master Development Plans define precisely the quality of life that a citizen in urban area desirably expects to lead in medium and long term perspective. Only about eight years remain before us for entering into twenty first century.106. The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 came into force in August, 1959. The Master-Plan was directed to be prepared for urban area of Jaipur, on 7th Oct., 1964. The Master-Plan was prepared and approved by the State Government on 4th June, 1976, i.e., in long 12 years, and that also in relation to the period 1971-1991. The period from 1971 to the middle of June, 1976, had already expired when the Master-Plan was approved. The JDA Act, 1982 came into force on 12th Oct., 1982. No master-plan was framed under this Act, and the master plan prepared under Improvement Act, 1959, by virtue of Sections 27 & 101 (b) of the JDA Act, continued to be operative . The year 1991 has already expired, and the operation of the above master-plan has also come to an end. The medium range perspective of the year 1991,has ended, and we still do not have a master plan from long term perspective of the Year 2001 A.D. Was this the object behind enacting the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 with a bulky composition as detailed in Section 4 of the Act ? The master-plan 1971-91 does not stand implemented. The walled city was already there since long before. Bani Park District had already completed its development in the forties. In Ashok Nagar-Tilak Nagar District, development took place since 1940. Development of Jawahar Nagar was made by the Rajasthan Housing Board. Gandhi Nagar is covered by Government residential houses. The master-plan 1971-91 does not stand implemented. The walled city was already there since long before. Bani Park District had already completed its development in the forties. In Ashok Nagar-Tilak Nagar District, development took place since 1940. Development of Jawahar Nagar was made by the Rajasthan Housing Board. Gandhi Nagar is covered by Government residential houses. Lal Kothi development was nothing but a worst type of land scandal committed by the Land Acquisition Officer and never investigated by the JDA or the State Government. Only in Malviya Nagar and Vidyadhar Nagar levelling of land, plotting of lands and allotment of plots has been made by the JDA. Mansarovar and Sanganer Schemes are being gradually developed by the Rajasthan Housing Board and not by the JDA. That is all, in substance, the achievements if they can at all be even named as achievements of the JDA.107. All lands wherever situate, which are not the property of individuals or of bodies legally capable of holding property, vest in the State by virtue of Section 88 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Section 90-A of the said Act inter alia provides, no person holding any land for the purpose of agriculture and no transferee of such land or any part thereof, can use the same or any part thereof, by the construction of buildings thereon or otherwise for any other purpose except with the written permission of the State Government obtained in the manner laid down." The manner laid down is, by way of an application to the prescribed authority, containing prescribed particulars. The State Government after due inquiry,either refuses the permission or grants the same, subject to the prescribes terms & conditions. In the event of permission being granted, the person concerned is liable to pay to the State Government an urban assessment at the prescribed rates or premium or both. If the land is used for non-agricultural purposes by a person without the written permission of the State Government, that person is deemed to be a trespasser, liable to ejectment. Power is reserved with the State Government to allow such person to retain the land, instead of ejecting him, on payment to the State Government penalty, in addition to the urban assessment and premium.108. Pressure on land in Jaipur urban area was great. Power is reserved with the State Government to allow such person to retain the land, instead of ejecting him, on payment to the State Government penalty, in addition to the urban assessment and premium.108. Pressure on land in Jaipur urban area was great. The State, Urban Improvement Trust or the Jaipur Development Authority were not speedly solving the problem of additional residential and commercial needs of the people by acquiring lands, framing projects and schemes and implementing them.109. The process of allowing conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes started with the framing of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural into Non-Agricultural Land) Rules, 1961. Under these rules, however, conversion could be permitted only for construction of a factory or mill or setting up of a small scale industry, setting up of brick-kiln or lime kilns and manufacturing of salt. The process was extended to construction of cinemas and hotels and for establishment of petrol-pumps in the year 1978. So far as the process of allowing conversion of agricultural land for construction of a residential house or for any commercial purpose was concerned, it started from the year 1971, when the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Conversion of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purposes in Rural Areas) Rules, 1971 came into force. These rules did not extend to urban areas and only extended to villages throughout the State except those falling within any municipal area and the periphery villages. Nothing was done to meet the pressure on land and growing need of land for residential and commercial purposes in urban areas till the year 1978 when the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential or Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1978 were framed.110. When Urban Improvement Trusts failed to achieve the desired objectives and when even prior to 4th June, 1976. Master-Plan for Urban Area of Jaipur was not finalised, people started cooperative housing movement. Several housing cooperative societies came into being. They purchased agricultural lands from khatedars either through registered sale-deeds or came into possession of such lands under agreements to sell. They prepared layouts, carved out plots for residential purposes and allotted plots to its members for constructing residential houses. Several housing cooperative societies came into being. They purchased agricultural lands from khatedars either through registered sale-deeds or came into possession of such lands under agreements to sell. They prepared layouts, carved out plots for residential purposes and allotted plots to its members for constructing residential houses. Colonies after colonies sprang up on the plots of lands thus acquired and allotted by the housing cooperative societies, by illegal and unauthorised conversion of agricultural land at the nearest and closest eye-sight vision of the State Government at its capital seat with no action on the part of the State Government to prevent this unauthorised conversion of land through the media of housing cooperative societies. People of the capital of this State felt relaxed that some how they were able to get plots of land to provide for them a roof for shelter. The State Government only remained a silent spectator and was deriving satisfaction from a purely legalistic stand that although it would provide amenities of electric and water connection to the house owners in these colonies but would not make any development therein by construction of roads, drains and sewerage line. It cannot be regarded at all a sensitive approach to a purely human problem. A welfare State is not that State which neither itself makes any development nor does it allow the people themselves to make development. Rule of law does not convey any idea of stagnation to the detriment of the people. Public good, in a welfare State is the paramount goal and each and every measure of the State Government must be practical and conducive to the public good and to provide a higher quality of life to the citizens. That is town-planning, and that is development.111. What does happen in such circumstances ? Citizens are forced to live in dirty colonies detrimental to their health and devoid of all basic amenities and the Government, which neither itself could make development nor could prevent unauthorised development, is forced to provide under 1978 Rules, for conversion or regularisation of conversions made by the housing cooperative societies before 14 the Nov., 1973, by charging premium. Law-breakers are thus regularised and law-abiders suffer. This is contrary to all notions of rule of law.112. Law-breakers are thus regularised and law-abiders suffer. This is contrary to all notions of rule of law.112. Encouraged by this, the movement of housing cooperative societies gains speed, because, they know that their unauthorised conversion of agricultural land for residential purposes would sooner or later be again regularised as before, and that was done by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion & Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981. Rule 3(3) of the 1981 Rules boldly proclaims, "If any agricultural land (including Government unoccupied agricultural land) has already been used for residential or commercial purposes before the commencement of these rules without permission of the Government in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act, such use may, on an application, be regulareised by the Authorised Officer, by charging the price of land, conversion-charges and penalty, as provided by these rules, and such development charges peripheral development charges and compounding and other charges as may be prescribed under any other law or rule applicable." Whether development takes place or not, but, price, conversion-charges, penalty amounts, development and peripheral development charges and compounding and other charges continue as a continuing source of revenue to the State Government. Fiscal advantages of these rules outweigh the development. This is the vicious circle, created preventing planned development with decent quality of life to citizens.113. In this backdrop, Jaipur Nagar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samitiyan Association, Jaipur, asserts that it has been constituted as an Association of Housing Cooperative Societies to look after and safeguard the interests of its members cooperative housing societies, enumerated in schedule-A to its writ petition. Buniyadi Vikas China Niramn Sahakari Samiti Ltd. has established three schemes of housing in Villages - Badarwas, Nandkishorepura alias Manyavas and Kalyanpura. Scheme in Badarwas extends to Khasra Nos. 136, 137, 161/134. It is said that this land was purchased by the society on 19th June, 1974, under an agreement to sell, and possession of the land was taken over by the Society with effect from that date. Later on, the Khatedar, Kishanlal executed a sale-deed, and got it registered on 6th July, 1985. This Society, it is stated, has deposited the conversion charges in the Government Treasury, on 10th July, 1985 and on 12th Sept., 1985. Later on, the Khatedar, Kishanlal executed a sale-deed, and got it registered on 6th July, 1985. This Society, it is stated, has deposited the conversion charges in the Government Treasury, on 10th July, 1985 and on 12th Sept., 1985. The Additional Collector (West), Land Conversion, Jaipur, ordered the conversion to be revised by his order dated 4th Aug., 1986, and directed the JDA, to send the plan of the society after approval. The proceedings are pending in the Board of Revenue. This Society also purchased land in Village Kalyanpura and Jhalana Chowk under registered sale-deed dated 1st Feb., 1984, and deposited subdivision charges with the JDA. The JDA refused sub-division as the land was situated in green-belt area.114. Arvind Nagar Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. purchased Khasra Nos. 235, 248 to 250 & 259 in Village Dhauwas. The sale-deed is dated 16th May, 1988, and mutation was recorded on 24th Feb., 1990. Moti Bhavan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur, established three schemes in Villages-Badarwas, Bir Khatipura and Gokulpura. This Society had purchased lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 9 to 19 (expect Khasra Nos. 11 & 12), measuring 48 bighas, under an agreement to sell dated 15th June, 1981, and these lands are said to be outside the limits of proposed Prithviraj Nagar Scheme, but, have been included in acquisition. The Society made application for conversion, to the Additional Collector (West), conversions, and deposited from time to time, Rs. 2,64,993.75 as conversion charges and Rs. 1,34,186.25 as the cost of land, in the Government Treasury. The Additional Collector, by his order dated 30th Dec., 1985, ordered conversion and also by another order dated 14th Apr., 1987. The society, in the meantime, also allotted plots to its members at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. The JDA has also approved the layout plan in relation to some plots and residential houses have already been constructed over them.115. Appolo Nagar Housing Cooperative Society had purchased land in Village - Hirapura, through sale-deeds dated 22nd Feb., 1989 & 31st Mar., 1989. Before that, it is said that agreement to sell had been entered into and was executed by the Khatedars in the year 1981, and possession of the land was handed over to the Society. The society deposited Rs. 4,24,999.64 from time to time, as conversion-charges. These informations were furnished in pursuance of the order of the Court, dated 22nd Oct., 1991.116. The society deposited Rs. 4,24,999.64 from time to time, as conversion-charges. These informations were furnished in pursuance of the order of the Court, dated 22nd Oct., 1991.116. Reference may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited and others v. State of U.P. and others (1990) 1 SCC 583 . Five cooperative societies, with membership of Government servants, mostly of the lower starta, had filed six separate writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the notification under section 4(1) & section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The principal contention of the Societies before the High Court was two-fold; (i) the cooperative societies consisting of the low-paid Government servants having acquired the land for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to their members, the Ghaziabad Development Authority, constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh, for the same purpose, should not have been permitted to acquire the land to their prejudice; and (ii) there was no justification for depriving the petitioners of their right to representation under section 5-A of the Acquisition Act. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The matter came before the Supreme Court. The cooperative societies had taken effective steps before the acquisition for Ghaziabad-Development Authority was notified. His Lordship, Ranganath Misra, J., observed : "A Master-Plan has been drawn for the area and some portions have been developed while the lands of the five cooperative societies have not been improved on account of the pendency of this group of cases. In course of hearing of these appeals, we were satisfied about the genuineness of the grievance advanced on behalf of the members, through their respective cooperative societies, and took the view that the members of the cooperative societies should not be denied residential accommodation, for which, they had taken effective steps before the acquisition for the Development Authority was notified. In course of hearing of these appeals, we were satisfied about the genuineness of the grievance advanced on behalf of the members, through their respective cooperative societies, and took the view that the members of the cooperative societies should not be denied residential accommodation, for which, they had taken effective steps before the acquisition for the Development Authority was notified. We took into consideration the total number of members as also the number of eligible members, the total area which the members had acquired and entrusted to the cooperative societies for construction, the capacity of the members to pay for the construction now charged by the Development Authority, the need of planned development of the area, and all other relevant facts and circumstances placed by all the parties before us and formed the opinion that it would be sufficient to meet the requirement of the members of these societies, if each one of them was provided with a plot, limited to an area of 80 square yards. Total members entitled to allotment are 1739... We have, therefore, decided that the construction must be confined to two storeys only and the members of their respective societies shall make their own adjustment of the ground floor and first floor allotments. About 20 acres of land would be necessary if the double-storey construction with an area of 80 square yards is adopted. For convenience and adjustment, we are of the view that two more areas of land be made available to the five cooperative societies to be shared by amicable adjustment by them. Thus, from the acquisition notification, 22 acres of land shall stand deleted and shall be released in accordance with the extent indicated for each of the five cooperative societies. It has been agreed that development-charges for sewerage, electricity, road-construction and the like, shall be provided by the Development Authority Rs. 100/- per square yard and internal development shall be done by the societies themselves in raising the construction, the bye-laws and regulations of the Development Authority shall be strictly followed. We hope and trust that the Development Authority shall extend its cooperation in every manner to the societies to effectuate the directions made by us. We look forward to the fulfilment of the dreams of each of the members of the society in the matter of having a residential accommodation. 117. We hope and trust that the Development Authority shall extend its cooperation in every manner to the societies to effectuate the directions made by us. We look forward to the fulfilment of the dreams of each of the members of the society in the matter of having a residential accommodation. 117. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hiralal Chawla and another v. State of U.P. and others (1990)2 SCC 149 ) , may also be referred to. The dispute related to allotment of land for residential purposes by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA). NOIDA was a trans-Jamuna housing project, set up by Uttar Pradesh Government in the year 1976. Prior to the setting up of the NOIDA, The Defence Services Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and other societies had acquired lands in the area for the purpose of housing of their members and when the same came to be notified for acquisition for NOIDA, a writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition. On 14th Jan., 1985 after hearing the parties, a bench of the Court inter alia made the following directions: "Both sides presented a fair and nearly accurate picture of the present situation. Spirit of reconciliation rather than confrontation prevailed all throughout. All reasonable suggestions emanating from both sides either accepted or seriously considered by both sides with a view to implementing the scheme under which plots were to be allotted. Only three points remain which necessiated Court's intervention. Having examined them we direct: (1) NOIDA shall hand over actual possession of plots to each allottee of each society involved in the dispute. (2) Having regard to the fact that a sum of Rs. 550 sores has already been deposited by the allottees with the NOIDA for sometime and as the scheme had not been implemented as per time-schdeule provided in the scheme itself, we are of the opinion that the NOIDA is not entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982. 550 sores has already been deposited by the allottees with the NOIDA for sometime and as the scheme had not been implemented as per time-schdeule provided in the scheme itself, we are of the opinion that the NOIDA is not entitled to escalation charges for the year 1981 and 1982. (3) Having regard to the special facts of this case and the element of luck in getting a particular plot (i.e., corner plot), we direct that the NOIDA would not be entitled to collect special charge or anything extra for such plots." On 15th Dec., 1985, the following order was made: "The parties are agreed that the dispute in regard to payment of interest and the eligibility for allotment of plots may be decided by Shri D.A. Desai, Chairman, Law Commission, as mediator and not as arbitrator. The parties agree that whatever decision is given by Shri DA Desi, will be accepted by them as binding and there will be no question of challenging it in any form whatsoever. The parties also agree that simultaneous with the execution of documents possession of the plots shall be forthwith handed over to those who are admitted as eligible for allotment and interest shall be paid by them at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the order made by this Court.......... We have decided that instead of 90 acres of land, the total area to be released on that account, should be 96.29 acres in all,and different sizes of plots as provided in the scheme shall stand reduced to the sizes indicated below............ Apart from 2380 eligible allottes,there are separate applications. To meet their claims, we are of the view that 71 decimals should also be set apart and the same would be subject to such orders as the Court may ultimately make in these cases. The plots to be allotted are to be developed by the NOIDA........ There is a limit to waiting and human patience and the span of the life of the applicants is not available to be extended by the NOIDA. Taking an overall picture of the matter, we direct that a period of nine months is the limit within which developed plots shall be allotted to the 2380 entitled persons and such other persons as referred to above. Taking an overall picture of the matter, we direct that a period of nine months is the limit within which developed plots shall be allotted to the 2380 entitled persons and such other persons as referred to above. .........Taking into consideration the fact that these 2380 members have waited too long for allotment of their plots,we are of the view that NOIDA should be permitted to charge Rs. 1,000/- per square metre. Town planning in NOIDA is said to be in accordance with the norms laid down by itself and the same are prescribed by the Board. We direct that all the norms laid down by NOIDA in the matter of development shall be strictly followed. Supervision of this operation of course shall be by NOIDA but we hope and trust that the federation of the different societies would cooperate with the NOIDA in this regard." 118. Coming to the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion & Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purposes in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (for short, hereinafter, "the Rules"), they inter alia extend to master-plan area of any town for which masterplan has been notified and to periphery villages of such areas. Rule-3 of the Rules provides: "(1) Subject to other provisions of these rules, agricultural land may be permitted to be used for- (a) construction of a residential house, or (b) for any commercial purpose. (2) No agricultural land shall be converted for residential or commercial purpose referred to in sub-rule(l) unless necessary permission from the Authorised Officer has been obtained and lease deed under Rule-16 has been executed therefor. (3) If any agricultural land (including Government unoccupied agricultural land) has already been used for residential or commercial purpose before the commencement of these rules without permission of the Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 90-A of the Land Revenue Act such use may on an application, be regularised by the Authorised Officer by charging the price of land, conversion-charges and penalty as provided in these rules and such development charges, peripheral development charges and compounding and other charges as may be prescribed under any other law or rules applicable : Provided that the Authorised Officer may also suo motu or on the report of Sub-Divisional Officer/Tehsildar, having jurisdiction, take action as provided in these rules." 119. Rule-4 of the Rules contains some restrictions against conversion or regularisation. One of the restrictions is that no such permission shall be granted if the use to which the land has been put or is proposed to be put does not conform with the land use indicated in the master-plan of the area till the permission to alter the land use has been accorded by the Town Planning Department of the State Government. Such conversion or regularisation shall also not be permitted in respect of a residential house or a house-site, if the applicant already possesses another house or house-site within the area of the municipal town for this purpose. Conversion or regularisation is not permitted in relation to land coming within the purview of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, and the Rajasthan Land Reforms, and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estates Act, 1963, and also in relation to land in respect of which acquisition proceedings are pending under Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 or any other law in force. A register of applications received by the Authorised Officer, has to be maintained. Before submitting the application, each applicant has himself to assess the amount payable by him towards conversion-charges and penalty and in cases involving encroachment and conversion of Government lands, the land price in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and has to deposit the same in Government Treasury. Every application has to be accompanied by a treasury challan. The Authorised Officer has to scrutinies the application and obtain the views of the local body or the Town Planning Department, and he may either reject the application or pass an order of conversion or regularisation in accordance with the Rules.120. Rule-l0 lays down various conditions of conversion or regularisation ; and Rule-11, with rates of conversion-charges.Rule-1 1M &(8) read as under: "(7) In the case of a society, the conversion-charges and penalty recoverable under these rules shall be based on the actual area of a land held by the society for allotment to its members, and lands used for common purposes shall be excluded. (8) Where an individual member of a society to whom a plot is allotted by the said society, applies for conversion of his plot, the conversion-charges at the rate prescribed in Schedule-if shall be chargeable for the actual area of land allotted to him by the society." The entire amount realised on account of conversion-charges and penalty are to be credited to the Government account. On conversion, khatedari rights are surrendered to the Government and the land is held by the person or society concerned on the basis of a lease in perpetuity.121. As to the claim of the societies elucidated before the Court, it is clear that lands situated in Villages-Badarwas, Nandkishorepura alias Manyawas, Kalyanpura and Dhauwas are concerned, they are in green-belt zone in the master-plan. When the JDA cannot be permitted to use the area of green belt for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, the societies also cannot be permitted to use these lands for the above purposes. We are then left with lands held by the societies in Villages-Jhalana Chowk, Bir Khatipura and Heerapura, held by Moti Bhawan Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Buniyadi Vikas Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and Apollo Nagar Housing Cooperative Society. These villages in the master-plan are for proposed urban area. By Ex P.10 dated 31st May, 1983, the Deputy Commissioner, JDA had rejected the application of Buniyadi Vikas Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti for sub-division of plots with respect to land bearing Khasra No. 1/268 measuring 16 bighas, situated in Village-Kalyanpura and purchased by the Society under sale-deed (Annex.P.6) for its proposed Vikas Nagar.122. Land of some Khasra numbers situated in Bir Khatipura is said to have been acquired by Moti Bhavan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. from one Smt. Rama Kumari widow of Late Major Pratap Singh, under an agreement to sell, in the year 1981. The said Society chalked out a plan and named it as Anand Nagar. It made an application for approval of sub-division and for conversion of agricultural land. The Additional Collector (West), Conversion, by his order dated 30th Dec., 1985, passed a provisional order of conversion and final orders were to be passed on full compliance of the conditions mentioned in the order (Annex.P/23). One of the conditions related to the vesting or non-vesting of this land in the State Government under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estate Act, 1963. One of the conditions related to the vesting or non-vesting of this land in the State Government under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estate Act, 1963. It is difficult to understand the passing of a provisional order of conversion under the Rules. This land was recorded in the Jamabandi in the name of former ruler of Jaipur State, Sawai Man Singh. Acquisition proceedings under the aforesaid Act of 1963 were going on in relation to this land. It, however, appears that under the orders of the State Government, provisional deposit of conversion-charges in relation to such lands were allowed under Government orders and if the lands were ultimately acquired by the State under the Act of 1963, the provisional deposits were to be adjusted as against the cost of the land. If the lands were not ultimately acquired, the amount of provisional deposits were to be refunded. It is for the State Government to consider if that was the scope and ambit of Rule-20 of the Rules. What can only be commented is that such acts of the State Government only bring out the truth of what has been said above that the State Government's sole concern has been to collect money from the residents of the State-whether that collection may be made by conversion or regularisation or it may be only by promise to convert or regularise. Development and solving the residential problem of the people of the State, was nowhere near in its mind.123. Be that all as it may,another order dated 14th Apr., 1987 (Annex. P/24) was passed by the Additional Collector, Conversion, Jaipur, in favour of Moti Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., whereby, he sanctioned conversion of plots Nos. 145, 122, 148, 143, 144 & 14. Although, as many as 170 plots had been allotted by Moti Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur, as per the list (Annex.P/25), but, it is not dear why conversion of only nine plots were allowed vide Annexure-P/24.124. So far as Apollo Nagar Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. is concerned, it states to have purchased agricultural lands under sale-deeds of the year 1989, i.e., after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued. It states to have deposited an amount of Rs. 4,24,999.64 as conversion-charges as per Ex.P31 and Ex.P.32.125. So far as Apollo Nagar Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. is concerned, it states to have purchased agricultural lands under sale-deeds of the year 1989, i.e., after notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was issued. It states to have deposited an amount of Rs. 4,24,999.64 as conversion-charges as per Ex.P31 and Ex.P.32.125. In these writ petitions, it is not possible for this Court to decide about the eligibility of the allottees from these two cooperative societies pertaining to Bir Khatipura and Heerapura and also whether they already hold residential accommodation with them or not. One of the housing societies had purchased the land after the notification under under section 4(1) of the Act had been issued. Passing of the orders of conversion is the function assigned under the Rules to the Authorised Officer after complying with the procedural formalities specified in the Rules and the fulfilment of various conditions. Opportunity was given to the societies and the learned Advocate General, to thrash out the controversy and to arrive at some mutual arrangement/agreement. Although, some meeting took place between the learned counsels for the societies and the learned Advocate General, but, no agreed arrangement and solution was furnished.126. In Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.'s case (supra), the membership of the society was that of low-paid Government servants, who had acquired lands for the purpose of residential accommodation. In Hiralal Chawla's case (supra), spirit of reconciliation rather than confrontation prevailed all throughout and reasonable suggestions emanated from both sides either accepted or seriously considered. There was no impediment against non-conversion and permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use. There was no contravention of master-plan. These things exist in the writ petitions before me. In such circumstances this Court is not in a position to pass effective orders in the cases of the cooperative societies to solve the housing problem of the members of the societies. It is for the State Government, the Authorised Conversion Officer and the JDA to consider the case of each society on its merits and in accordance with law.127. One more point deserves to be noticed. In its 43rd meeting of the Executive Committee of Jaipur Development Authority, held on 6th Jan., 1990, the Executive Committee approved the proposal of M/s Suneja Towers (a private builder) for developing a township in Prithviraj Nagar. One more point deserves to be noticed. In its 43rd meeting of the Executive Committee of Jaipur Development Authority, held on 6th Jan., 1990, the Executive Committee approved the proposal of M/s Suneja Towers (a private builder) for developing a township in Prithviraj Nagar. Following terms & conditions were broadly approved: (a) Not less than 75% of saleable area should be constructed by the developers and sold to public. (b) Internal development can be left to the developer and the peripheral development should be undertaken by the JDA. (c) The layout plan/scheme should be approved by the JDA. (d) The urban design concept plan in the process of preparation by the JDA for Prithviraj Nagar should be followed. (e) The disposal of built-up accommodation as well as the plots should be done by the developers through JDA only. However, JDA may not have any objection in advance booking and direct negotiation with allottees by the developer. The title-papers should be given by the JDA and not by the developer. (f) Development standards of internal development should be prescribed by the JDA. (g) The land will be purchased by the developer in the name of JDA, which will then be given to the developer for development and disposal. The cost of land will be borne by the developer who will directly renotiate the price with the former. (h) Developer shall pay Rs. 100/- per square yard to JDA out of which JDA will meet expenses on external development and incur other expenditure as agreed to. This amount will increase every year by 10%. By mutual agreement, this amount can also be recovered directly from the allottees/purchaser of plots and built-up areas. (i) Lease-money as per JDA Rules, will be charged by the JDA. (j) JDA may lay down other conditions required. It was also decided that this scheme may be thrown open to all other builders who might be interested (see Annex.16). In pursuance of this decision, the JDA also addressed a leter dated 29th Jan., 1990 (Annex.17) to M/s Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. (j) JDA may lay down other conditions required. It was also decided that this scheme may be thrown open to all other builders who might be interested (see Annex.16). In pursuance of this decision, the JDA also addressed a leter dated 29th Jan., 1990 (Annex.17) to M/s Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. The necessary consequence of the above decision and the above letter is that the JDA was even throwing the acquisition of land to winds and permitting M/s Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd. to negotiate and purchase the agricultural land in the name of JDA out of the private company's own funds and develop & set up Prithviraj Nagar Township and to sell/allot plots of Ikand to purchasers/allottees, through JDA. The developers were to pay Rs. 100/- per square yard to JDA, and this amount could be recovered from the purchasers apart from its own price while disposing of the built up accommodation. What is this in substance ? JDA wants only name and fame and intends to charge brokerage at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard from the private developer for this disbursement of State largessee. It has no faith and trust in itself for making development and solving the housing problem as a welfare State. How can acquisition and simultaneous permission to M/s Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd. to directly negotiate and purchase the agricultural land from the agriculturists at its own cost in the name of the JDA, go together ? This is again a matter for the respondents to ponder.128. Then, the result follows : 1. The period of validity of the master-plan 1971-91, which was saved by Sections 27 & 101(1)(f) of the Act, has come to an end. The JDA has, therefore, immediately to prepare a fresh Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, in accordance with Sections 21 to 24 of the Act. 2. It has to re-cast the green-belt zone, so as to exclude the present village lands which are intended to be used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. 3. It has to include new village areas/rural township in new green-belt area. 4. It has then to make project and scheme for Prithvi Raj Nagar, finalise it, approve it and publish it as an approved project and scheme in accordance with Sections 38 & 39 of the Act. 5. 3. It has to include new village areas/rural township in new green-belt area. 4. It has then to make project and scheme for Prithvi Raj Nagar, finalise it, approve it and publish it as an approved project and scheme in accordance with Sections 38 & 39 of the Act. 5. It has thereafter to issue fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, specifying therein, the public purpose, with some degree of certainty and precision and proceed further for acquisition of land in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the Land Acquisition Act. Publication of the notifications should be strictly followed in accordance with law. 6. So far as declaration of development area under Section 29 of the Act is concerned, it has already been done, and fresh declaration is not required. 129. If the Jaipur Development Authority and the State Government, after carefully reading the Act and the Acquisition Act, proceed systematically and in accordance with law, step-by-step, and with promptitude, still, in a very short time, it can establish and erect Prathvi Raj Nagar in Jaipur Region. To the contrary, if they proceed in the manner in which they have proceeded so far, Prathvi Raj Nagar would remain simply as a dream and a child cry in wilderness. Legal advice is best available to the Jaipur Development Authority & the State Government, if earnestly sought and correctly given. As a matter of fact, this Court is more worried about speedy and planned development of Jaipur Region, to solve the housing problem of innumerable needles. All that is required is that Jaipur Development Authority, if it intends at all to act, it should act in accordance with the statute, which created it, and that it must not act at all otherwise.130. All that is required is that Jaipur Development Authority, if it intends at all to act, it should act in accordance with the statute, which created it, and that it must not act at all otherwise.130. With these observations, I allow all the 117 writ petitions, detailed & described in the Schedule, annexed to this order, do hereby quash the notification No.F. 6(15)na.vi.aa/11/87, dated 6th January, 1988 (published in the Rajasthan Gazette-Part -6(Kha), dated 7th July, 1988) under section 4(1); the declaration, dated 28th July, 1989, under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 31st July, 1989); and all the proceedings of acquisition, taken thereunder qua the petitioners and their agricultural lands; and do, by a writ of prohibition, restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners in these writ petitions, from the lands held by them, in pursuance of the above acquisition proceedings. However, in the circumstances of the case, I shall leave the parties to bear their own costs in all these writ petitions. SPEECH BY HON,BLE MR. Justice, NAVIN CHANDRA SHARMA, ON HIS SUPERANNUATION ON 9.9.92. My Lord the Chief Justice, my brother Lords, Mr. Advocate General, President of the Bar Council of Rajasthan, President, Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, learned members of legal fraternity, officers and staff of the Registry, members of subordinate judiciary, ladies & gentlemen. Today, my recollections go 41 years back, when, I, for the first time, had entered the precincts of law courts. I started practice on civil side at Jaipur, and pleadings presented in those days, though drawn in Devnagri scripts used Urdu terminology, and I became known to expressions like 'Arzi-dawa', 'Jawab-dawa', 'Tankiyat', 'Binaay-dawa', 'Binaay-Mukhasat', 'Nija Phaisalsuda' and the like. I had occasion to appear before several types of Presiding Officers of various courts-some learned in law, some sympathetic towards juniors, some appeasing senior counsels, some arrogant, some hasty, some avoiding case-work, and some not having bare knowledge of law. I sometimes used to ponder as to how I ought to have thought and acted, had I been in their place. After I completed the compulsory term of pleadership, I got myself enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. I still remember that in the first case, in which, I appeared in the High Court before Late Mr. I sometimes used to ponder as to how I ought to have thought and acted, had I been in their place. After I completed the compulsory term of pleadership, I got myself enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. I still remember that in the first case, in which, I appeared in the High Court before Late Mr. Justice K.K. Sharma, my contention was that over-stay in India beyond the validity of the period of passport, was no offence under the Passport Act or the rules framed thereunder. The learned Judge accepted my contention and he made judgment reportable, and it was reported in Rajasthan Law Weekly. I was working as a junior to Late Mr. Justice C.B. Bhargava, who was then Deputy Government Advocate at Jaipur. With him I came in touch with constituu-ttional law, as I generally used to draft the replies to be filed to the writ petitions on behalf of the State and to find out rulings in support of the defence set up by the Government. Those were days when Mr. Justice K.N. Wanchoo was the Chief Justice and eminent judges like Sarvashri K.L. Bapna, I.N. Modi, D.S. Dave, J.S. Ranawat and K.K. Sharma were the pulsne Judges of this Court, and eminent Advocates like Sarvashri C.L. Agrawal, D.M. Bhandari, R.K. Rastogi, P.N. Dutt, H.P. Gupta, Brij Bhushan Sharma, father of my colleague Mr. Justice M.B. Sharma, J.P. Jain and others used to brilliantly argue the cases before the High Court and it was a matter of learning to hear their arguments. Mr. K.S. Hejela was the Advocate-General, and Shri C.B. Bhargava & Shri Ram Avtar Gupta were Deputy Government Advocates at Jaipur, and Shri N.L Chhangani and Shri Kan Singh were Government Advocates at Jodhpur. Arguments in those days were deeply studied and there was practically pin-drop silence in Court. Arguments were heard patiently and with rapt attention by Judges. There was no need or occasion to call the Advocates to obtain their appearance. They appeared themselves and were careful enough to keep themselves informed of the time when their case was likely to be heard. Judges put relevant queries and made earnest efforts to fully grasp the rival contentions. Rarely, there was any undefended or unreplied writ petition or criminal case on behalf of the State Government. Advocate-General, Government Advocates and Deputy Government Advocates argued the cases after full study and with vigour. Judges put relevant queries and made earnest efforts to fully grasp the rival contentions. Rarely, there was any undefended or unreplied writ petition or criminal case on behalf of the State Government. Advocate-General, Government Advocates and Deputy Government Advocates argued the cases after full study and with vigour. There used to be no occasion for lawyers to strike or boycott the courts. I earnestly wish that those good old days may come back again in the judiciary of this State as well as in all High Courts in this country. During those days, the courts were actively engaged in the hurculean task of finding out the meaning, true scope and ambit of various fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and of interpreting other important constitutional provisions. Charanjit Lal's case, Anwar Ali Sarkar's case, Kothi Running's case, Qasim Razvi's case and the case of Lachhmandas had started to lay down the doctrine of permissible reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution. Gopalan's case had started interpreting the scope of personal liberty in Article 21. Measures to abolish Zamindari and Jagirdari led to the necessity of interpreting Article 190)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. The scope of Articles 301 & 304 of the Constitution was interpreted in Rajasthan in those days in a matter relating to Goods & Passengers Tax Cases, the reply to which writ petition was drafted by me. So far as service law was concerned, in those days, mostly the cases pertaining to wrongful dismissals and other penalties and the scope of Article 311 of the Constitution came before the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts. I had, therefore, occasion during the period of my practice to understand the above constitutional provisions. I could know that the equality doctrine in our Constitution had been adopted from the last clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse from the Australian Constitution. The great purpose for which the institution of judiciary existed and which it was serving, gave me an inner thought to join the institution as presiding officer of the subordinate courts with effect from 1st July, 1958. Conviction that Constitution and rules of law are supreme and that the sole object of the courts is to impart Justice, had taken its roots in my heart and mind. Conviction that Constitution and rules of law are supreme and that the sole object of the courts is to impart Justice, had taken its roots in my heart and mind. So also the basic fundamental aspect that this lofty purpose can only be achieved by acting without fear or favour and without ill-will or affection for the maintenance of judicial independence. Those were days when one could discharge his judicial functions without fear and favour and that was why I, as a Munsif Magistrate, Nasirabad, in the year 1960, could muster in myself the courage and will to hold that the State Legislature had no competence to enact for or extend the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, to the cantonment area of Nasirabad, and hence, the extension was ultra vires, and I referred my opinion to the High Court under provision to Section 113, CPC, and Mr. Justice I.N. Modi of this Court, upheld my views which were later affirmed by the Supreme Court as well. That was why I could declare in the year 1966 that Rajasthan Public Service Commission (as it then existed) was not validly constituted and the State Government thereafter soon made its constitution valid. I have, in all humility, placed these only as examples to show that how free and independent the judiciary was then. Today, I feel that danger to the independence of judiciary is more within itself than from anything outside it. May the olden times revive. During 1964 to 1967, I was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Ajmer (East) and then, for the first time, I was required to decide civil suits involving service law, because, the railway area of Ajmer fell within my territorial jurisdiction and I had not less than forty service law cases to deal withanddecide. Fortunately, quite brilliant Advocates of Ajmer like Late Shri Mahesh Dutt Bhargava, Shri Shanti Lal Gupta, Shri D.P.Gupta and Late Laxman Das used to appear in them. Shri Mahesh Dutt Bhargava representing the railway, had a very good liliary. I availed of Halsubury's Laws of England to find what was the "doctrine of pleasure" and how it developed into "doctrine of good behaviour" in English Law. By that time, the service law had not remained confined to Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had already decided Moti Ram Deka's case, Rampal Upadhyay's case and M.H. Bellary's cases. I availed of Halsubury's Laws of England to find what was the "doctrine of pleasure" and how it developed into "doctrine of good behaviour" in English Law. By that time, the service law had not remained confined to Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had already decided Moti Ram Deka's case, Rampal Upadhyay's case and M.H. Bellary's cases. Service rules were laid down to be justiciable. Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution had started playing into the field of service law. That gave me an intuition to do some work on service law. It was during those days that I wrote first two preliminary chapters of my intended book on service law-which I do not know whether I would be able to complete it or not, but, I would only say that I have surely a will to complete it in the shortest possible time hereafter. In August, 1967, I received an order of the High Court, promoting me as Civil Judge, alongwith several other judicial officers. While all other judicial officers promoted as Civil Judge, along with me were also given a posting as Civil Judge, but, I was kept, "awaiting posting orders". I could not follow the idea behind keeping me as "awaiting posting orders" and I was a bit perplexed. I, therefore, had a talk on telephone with the Registrar of the High Court as to what about me, and I was told that my name had been recommended to the State Government by the High Court, for posting me as Assistant Legal Draftsman,in the Law Department of the Secretariat, and that I would be posted by the Government. Before that, I did not actually know whether any post of Assistant Legal Draftsman for judicial officers of the cadre of Civil Judge existed in the Secretariat, as I had never entered into the main gate of the State Secretariat,and I had never walked into its corridors. I was given to understand that the then Chief Justice Shri Daulat Mal Bhandari had good opinion about me,and therefore, he had recommended my posting as Assistant Legal Draftsman in my home town of Jaipur,with a special pay of Rs. 75/-. I joined in the Secretariat in August, 1967. Immediately, I was allotted the heaviest work of opinion and legislative drafting of important Government departments like Revenue, Finance and Department of Personnel. 75/-. I joined in the Secretariat in August, 1967. Immediately, I was allotted the heaviest work of opinion and legislative drafting of important Government departments like Revenue, Finance and Department of Personnel. I did not know anything about legislative drafting then. I had heard that there was till then past an astute legal draftsman Shri Kaloo Ram Agarwal in the Law Department, who was a wizard in legislative drafting and had retired. I just took various legislations and subordinate legislations drafted by Shri Kaloo Ram, studied the mode of drafting and other formalities to be completed in the drafting of Bills. Within two or three months, I picked up myself the tricks of the trade. The first legislative measure which I drafted in the year 1967, pertained to requisition of motor vehicles to meet with famine conditions in Rajasthan. For that, I already knew that fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 190)(f) and 31 of the Constitution have to be kept in view. Then, I had to draft various amending bills to amend to old agricultural ceiling law contained in Chapter-III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Having drafted three or four bills and having successfully got piolated them on the floor of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, there was no stopping or looking behind for me. Thereafter, practically, I drafted most of the important legislative bills and subordinate legislations right from the year 1967 to June, 1976, and thereafter, from 1980 to 1983. In between July, 1976 and January, 1979, Government of India, Ministry of External affairs, selected me for foreign assignment to draft Hindu Law and Uniform Civil Code for Mautitius, and I drafted the same there and most of my recommendations and the draft were accepted by the Mauritius Government. Thereafter, I remained as Member, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, from 1984 upto the date of my elevation as Judge of this Court on 27th Oct., 1986. As I had drafted practically all the revenue legislations, I did not feel any difficulty in administering revenue laws. My tenure as a Judge of this Court, has been under your watch and scrutiny, as members of Bar are Judge of Judges. My tenure hardly calls for any assessment by me. As I had drafted practically all the revenue legislations, I did not feel any difficulty in administering revenue laws. My tenure as a Judge of this Court, has been under your watch and scrutiny, as members of Bar are Judge of Judges. My tenure hardly calls for any assessment by me. Suffice it to state that during my tenure, I have, in all humility, tried only to re-state the law, with some degree of judicial activism, regarding inviolability of human body, dignity of individual, scope and ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution as laid down in the cases of Bassappa v. T. Nagappa and Dwarkanath 's case.I have struck down administrative orders, which were in colourable exercise of powers. I have laid down that bodies which are creature of statute must act according to the statute, which created them or should not act at all. I have tried to examine administrative orders on the touch-stone of non-application of mind,taking into account of extraneous, irrational and irrelevant matters. I have given effect to the entering of the public law into the field of private contracts generally and also particularly in relation to financially aided educational institutions. I may submit that I have re-stated the law as genuinely understood by me. Law has, by now, reached its finest stages, and I have, therefore, resisted and desisted any attempt to reverse the gear. The classic formulation of the rule of law was set forth by A.V. Dicey, who was foremost scholar of English constitutional law during the later part of the twenteenth century. According to Dicey, one of the distinct meanings of rule of was, "no man is above the law. Every man.....is subject to the ordinary law of the realm." The clearest expression of the rule of law in the United States history is found in Article-XXX of the Massachusetts' Constitution of 1780, which established the separation of powers doctrine "to the end that it may be a Government of laws and not of men". Although, not specifically stated in the Federal Constitution, the same idea is implicit in that document. Of course,the phrases, "Government of laws" and "Government of men" have meaning only in a relative sense, because, men ultimately must make and administer the laws. Yet, the idea behind the doctrine is clear. Although, not specifically stated in the Federal Constitution, the same idea is implicit in that document. Of course,the phrases, "Government of laws" and "Government of men" have meaning only in a relative sense, because, men ultimately must make and administer the laws. Yet, the idea behind the doctrine is clear. It means that the system of laws under which we live must be applied equally to each citizen and that no person may be subjected to the arbitrary decisions of Government-Officers. Federal governmental action must be based on law-that is, it must be authorised by and not conflict with the Constitution and the statutes passed by the Congress, which constitute an expression of the people's sovereign will. The difference, then between a Government of laws and a Government of men (to the extent that these phrases have any real meaning) is not a difference in kind but a difference of degrees only. It is nevertheless a difference of high and important degree; for it bespeaks a difference in spirit; and in Government, as in most other human institutions, the spirit is often the essence.Again Dicey said in his "Law of Constitution"- "If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredicable and such a decision is antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. It was Justice Douglas, who stated in United States v. Wanderlich , "Law has reached its finest moments,which has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler. Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered." "Discretion," as Lord Masfield stated it in classic terms in John Wilke's case, means, "sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour. It must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful." Justice Jackson had observed,"there are village tyrants as well as village Hampdens, but, none who acts under colour of law is beyond the reach of the Constitution."One of the prime objects of Indian constitutional scheme in Article 14 is the fullest development of individual and his dignity through rule of law. The rule of law excludes arbitrariness, its postulate is,"intelligence without passion" and "reason freed from desire". Buddhan Choudhary's case in the year 1955 started with proposition that Acticle 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. The rule of law excludes arbitrariness, its postulate is,"intelligence without passion" and "reason freed from desire". Buddhan Choudhary's case in the year 1955 started with proposition that Acticle 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. Lately, however, it has now been laid down by his Lordship Venkatachalliah, J. that "one must not over-do classification." Horizons of Article 14 of the Constitution have been expanded by the Apex Court by its decision in International Airport Authority, Harminder Singh, Central Water Authority cases and some other latest cases. Dimensions to Article 21 have been given in Sunil Batra and Olga Tellis cases.To relieve victims of arbitrary abuse of discretion and to pin down public authorities to act with honesty and good faith the courts have evolved the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Its horizon was broadened not only as a weapon of defence but as a cause of action enforceable in a court of law.Justice Jackson referred to Lincon's famous dilemma- "Must a Government of necessity be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence". He observed "Government of limited power need not be an Government. Assurance that rights are secure tends to diminish fear and jealousy of strong Government, and by making us feel safe to like and it makes for better support. To enforce Bill of Rights today is not to choose weak Government over strong Government.It is only to adhere as a means of strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous end."I may emphasise the need for guarding against the slow-march of bureaucratic movement embodied in Lord Curzon's lament respecting the administration of his time, a state of affairs wholly applied to the dynamic fulfilment of the imperatives cast by the Constitution upon the nation and its institutions. Lord Curzon said in a despatch to the Secretary of State- 'Then we go to the region of Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries and Secretaries. All these gentlemen state their worthless views at equal length. Finally, we get to the top of the scale and we find the Viceroy and Military member, with a proper regard for their dignity,expanding themselves over a proportionate space of print. Then these papers wander about from Department to Department and amid the various members of council. All these gentlemen state their worthless views at equal length. Finally, we get to the top of the scale and we find the Viceroy and Military member, with a proper regard for their dignity,expanding themselves over a proportionate space of print. Then these papers wander about from Department to Department and amid the various members of council. I am grapping with this vile system in my own department, but it has seated itself like the old man of the sea upon the shoulders of the Indian Government and every man accepts, while deploring the burden." I leave it to the future generation to free the wheels of nation and administration,from the curse Lord Curzon spelt out which still haunts over administration.Something about freedom of thought, expression and speech. O. Chinnappa Reddy stated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rama Shanker Raghuvanshi , "India is not a police state. It is a democratic republic. Dignity of the individual is mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution. I may quote Black C.J.'s observations in Wieman v. Updegraff - one of the notorious loyalty oath cases. Black, C.J. observed- "History indicates that individual liberty is intermittently subjected to extraordinary perils. Even countries dedicated to Government by the people are not free from such cynical dangers..... The present period of fear seems more ominously dangerous to speech and press than that was that of the Alien and Sedition laws. Suppressive laws and practices are the fashion.... Test oaths are notorious tools of tyranny. Government need and have ample power to punish treasonable acts. But, it does not follow that they must have a further power to punish thought and speeches distinguished from acts.... Individuals are guaranteed an undiluted and unequivocal right to express themselves on questions of current public interest. It means that American discuss such questions as of right and not on sufference of legislatures, courts or any other governmental agencies." Let us once again remind ourselves of what Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore said- "Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high: where knowledge is free; where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action. Let my country awake." Credit to the expanding horizons of fundamental rights and rule of law mainly goes to the "activist judges" like P.N. Bhagwati, Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai and O. Chinnappa Reddy. Madon J. justified the rule of "activist judges". He said- "A Judge who denies to himself judicial activism, denies to himself the role of a Judge. Nature abhors a vaccum. Take away judicial activism and tyranny will step into fill the vacant sphere." In the United Kingdom also, the judicial philosophy of activism has been accepted by some Judges like Lord Devlin and Lord Denning. In United States of America also, some Judges have played the role of activist judges. Cardozo rightly expressed the role of a Judge. He wrote- "There is an old legend that on one occasion God prayed and his prayer was,"Be it my will that my Justice be ruled by mercy." That is a prayer which we all need utter at times when the demon of formalism tempts the intellect with the lure of scientific order. I do not mean, of course, that judges are commissioned to set aside existing rules at pleasure in favour of any other set of rules which they may hold to be expedient or wise. I mean that when they are called upon to say how far existing rules are to be extended or restricted, they must let the welfare of the society fix the path, its direction and distance." Chief Justice Earl Warren was one of the last activist Judges in the U.S.A.I would be failing if I do not say what I have been feeling since long. I spoke in the beginning that upholding the Constitution and the rule of law without fear and favour-without ill-will or affection-are the very basis of independence of judiciary and essential for dispensing Justice to the people. Till 1974,there did not appear any malady and one could very well discharge his judicial functions without fear and favour. The process of degeneration in Indian judiciary as well as judiciary in this State started there-after,step by step, when I returned from Mauritius in the beginning of the year 1979, it is a fact that a judicial officer happened to meet me at Sawaimadhopur on my return journey by train. He was per chance a Brahmin by caste and has his first name "Sharma", like me. He was per chance a Brahmin by caste and has his first name "Sharma", like me. He informed me for the first time that in Rajasthan High Court, practically there was a tooth-and-nail warfare going on between the followers of Mr. Justice K.D. Sharma and Mr. Justice D.P. Gupta, and cleavage had occurred purely on caste-basis in the judiciary of the State, from top to bottom. As I was out of India for a period of more than 21/2 years, I did not know anything about these developments. My reply to that judicial Officer was that why the Subordinate Judicial Officers should at all become followers of one or the other and seek their patronage. The misfortune is that we look to our immediate gains, and not to the tremendous irreparable damage that we thereby cause to this august institution. The result of that was a foregone conclusion. No sooner the two stalwarts retired, the sword hit about 19 Judicial Officers, who had forgotten to discharge their judicial functions in correct spirits and had become seekers of patronage. A Judicial Officer, to my mind, does not need to have a patronage or a Godfather at all. If he seeks to have one, he is not only betraying his office, but also losing his independence. My humble entreaty is that when Constitution mandates a casteless and creed society, no sooner we stop writing our surnames as "Sharma", "Verma", "Mathur, or "Agarwal" or the like, the better it is for the country and for the institution this Golden Jubilee year of Quit-India Movement, the slogan is not against Britishers or any other foreign power to quit this country, but, the slogan is the poverty, unemployment, nepotism, favourtism & corruption must quit India, due to which, we are still suffering even after 45 years of independence. We ought to safeguard against that tomorrow or in distant future, there may not be a slogan raised asking the Judges to quit their exhaulted, but eroded office, for the betterment & welfare of the people of this country. We ought to safeguard against that tomorrow or in distant future, there may not be a slogan raised asking the Judges to quit their exhaulted, but eroded office, for the betterment & welfare of the people of this country. I feel myself satisfied that before that slogan of "Quit-Judges" is raised, I am not quitting the office, but, laying down my office, on attaining the age of 62 years.I would like to quote the observations Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. unimitably made by him in the case of Kumari T.P. Rashana- "The rule of law runs close to the rule of life, and where societal life, as between one part of the State and another, is the victim of diehard disparities, the constitutional mandate of equal Justice under the law responds to it pragmatically and permits classification geared to eventual equalisation. We should protect our system from judicial Waterloo. The rule of law should not petrify life or be inflexibly mulish. It should be tempered by experience, allowed by principled compromise, informed by the anxiety to avoid in justice and soften the blow within the marginal limits of legality. That is the 'Karuna' of the laws. Law is not unimaginative, especially,in the writ jurisdiction, where responsible Justice is the goal. The Court cannot adopt a rigid attitude of negativity and sit back after striking down the scheme of the Government,leaving it to the helpless Government, caught in a crisis to maked do as best as it may, or throwing the situation open the agitating chaos to find a solution by demonstration in the streets and worse. The need for controlling its repercussions call for judicial response. After all, law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but an operational art in society. The court-system belongs to the people and must promote constructive Justice; and all institutions, including the Government and other institutions likewise belong to the people. The commitment is the west one for doing Justice in the wider context of social good. The root of the grievance and the fruit of the writ are not individual but collective and while the "adversory system" makes the Judge a mere umpire, traditionally speaking, the community orientation of the judicial function, so desireable in the Third World remedial jurisprudence, transforms the Court's power into affirmative structuring of redress, so as to make it personally meaningful and socially relevant. Frustration of invalidity is a part of the judicial duty; fulfilment of legality is complementary. The principle of affirmative action is within our jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 32." The legal profession should be totally committed to Justice-invididual social and spiritual truth. We should be conscious of the great past of the legal profession; the imprint the members of the Bar have left on the sands of time and the crucial role they have on occasions played as sentinals of cherished values and basic liberties. The members of the Bar are inhereitors of great traditions. Talking about the lawyers, Alexis de Tooquevillee,observed in early 19th Century:- "In America, there are no nobels or literary men and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequentially from the highest political class at the most cultivated section of society - If, I were asked, where I place the American Aristocracy, I would reply without hesitation, that it occupies the judicial bench of the Bar." There is some close kinship between the members of the Bar and those on the Bench. Their role is complimentary yet vital for ensuring the role of law and proper dispensation of Justice. I hope that the members of the Bar would uphold, strengthen and maintain its high traditions.Lastly, I would submit what Black, CJ, had said that we must not be lost sight of that no generation has monopoly over wisdom, nor has any generation a right to place fetters on future generations to mould the machinery of Government and the laws according to their requirements. Each generation, according to Jefferson, should be considered as a distinct nation with a right by the will of majority to bind themselves, but, none to bind the succeeding generation, more than inhabitants of another country. The earth belongs, in its usufruct, to the living, the dead have neither the power nor the right over it.Hopefully, I part with ease in my thoughts, leaving it to the future generation, to free the wheels of nation and administration, from the curse Lord Curzon spelt out which still haunts our administration. The earth belongs, in its usufruct, to the living, the dead have neither the power nor the right over it.Hopefully, I part with ease in my thoughts, leaving it to the future generation, to free the wheels of nation and administration, from the curse Lord Curzon spelt out which still haunts our administration. Let the constitutional provisions march forward out of the Book containing them.Before parting with, I thank My Lord the Chief Justice my colleague Lords on the Bench; the members of the Bar; the officers & staff of the Registry; and my personal staff, for their cooperation given to me in the discharge of my functions, during the tenure of my office.Having said all this and with no pinch or pain in my heart, I do hereby lay down my office in the afternoon of this the 9th day of September, 1992.Appeal dismissed. *******