K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 26th february, 1992 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992. The learned single judge has rejected the writ petitions on the ground that the appellants herein have not disclosed in the petitions the nature of interest they have in seeking the reliefs in their petitions; that petitioners 3 and 4 in the writ petitions, appellants herein, are close relations of one Sri y. r. aswathanarayana rao, who is the president of madhuvana griha nirmana sahakara sangha niyamitha, Mysore and that the petitioners have instituted the petitions with an oblique motive. Therefore, the learned single judge has declined to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have sufficient interest to maintain the petitions. ( 2 ) WHEN these appeals came up for orders on 4-8-1992 learned counsel srit. S. ramachandra, who had filed the appeals, sought permission to retire, as learned counsel Sri S. v. jagannath had filed power for the appellants. Accordingly, learned counsel Sri t. s. ramachandra was permitted to retire. Sri S. v. Jagannath, learned counsel had also filed a memo for permission to withdraw the appeals. The memo was ordered to be brought up for consideration along with i. a No. Iii filed by one Sri y. mahesh for impleading. It is also relevant to mention that the aforesaid Sri y. Mahesh has filed writ petition No. 19357 of 1992 on 29th june, 1992 seeking the reliefs similar to those sought in W. P. nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992 (lb ). Therefore, in the order dated 4-8-1992 passed in these appeals it was further ordered on the submission made on behalf of Sri y. Mahesh, the petitioner in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992, who had filed i. a No. Iii in these writ appeals for impleading, that W. P. No. 19357 of 1992 should also be heard along with these writ appeals. Accordingly, W. P. no 19357 of 1992 was ordered to be brought up along with these appeals. On 18th august, 1992 the following order was passed in the writ appeals:"in the light of the fact that the subject-matter of writ appeal nos. Accordingly, W. P. no 19357 of 1992 was ordered to be brought up along with these appeals. On 18th august, 1992 the following order was passed in the writ appeals:"in the light of the fact that the subject-matter of writ appeal nos. 506 to 509 of 1992 is also the subject-matter of writ petition No. 19357 of 1992 and that a person by name y. Mahesh has made an application to implead him as the appellant and continue the appeals before considering the application filed by the appellants for withdrawing these appeals, we are of the view that Sri mahesh can be permitted to be impleaded because the subject-matter of both the proceedings is in the nature of public interest litigation. Accordingly, i. a. No. Ill is allowed. The applicant in la. No. Iii be impleaded as the appellant. , as requested by the appellants, their names are deleted. These writ appeals shall now be heard as though the same are filed by Sri y. Mahesh. Cause title be amended. "xxx xxx xxx. Accordingly, the names of the original appellants were struck off and the appeals were continued in the name of Sri y. Mahesh and the writ appeals and the writ petition were heard together. ( 3 ) IT may also be mentioned here that on 24-4-1992 an interim order was passed in the writ appeals directing the respondent i. e. , the Mysore urban development authority "not to give possession certificate to the allottees if the allotment is made in the meanwhile". Again on 8-7-1992 the following interim order was passed in the writ appeals:"respondents are directed not to proceed to allot the sites on the applications received pursuant to the notification produced at Annexure-D. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to seek modification or vacation of this order". Annexure-D is the notification issued by the Mysore urban development authority, mysore, (hereinafter referred to as "muda") published in deccan herald, dated 12th january, 1992, calling for the applications for allotment of one thousand sites of various dimensions. In writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992, out of which writ appeal nos. 506 to 509 of 1992 (lb) arise, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notification No. Muda. In writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992, out of which writ appeal nos. 506 to 509 of 1992 (lb) arise, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notification No. Muda. aas- notification 1/91-92, dated 9-1-1992 published in the deccan herald, dated 12-1-1992, produced as Annexure-D , inviting applications from the public for allotment of sites in certain proposed extensions in the city of mysore. ( 4 ) IN writ petition No. 19357 of 1992 the petitioner has sought for adeclaration of the aforesaid notification produced as Annexure-D in the writ appeals, and also the list of applicants said to have been selected provisionally for allotment of sites pursuant to the aforesaid notification and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as null and void and inoperative being without jurisdiction. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the muda and its chairman, respondents 1 and 2 respectively, in the writ petition, from proceeding any further on the basis of the impugned notification Annexure-D and the list of applicants selected provisionally for allotment. A writ or order in the nature of mandamus is also sought for directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount collected from various applicants including those in the provisional list in question forthwith and further to direct the state of karnataka-respondent no, 3, to refer the charges of corruption made in the writ petition to the judicial inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. ( 5 ) BEFORE the averments in the petitions are summed up, it is relevant to notice that all these petitions are filed as public interest litigation challenging the action of the muda affecting the public in general and also the very authority and jurisdiction of the muda to proceed to form development schemes and purport to allot sites. ( 6 ) THE averments made in writ petition nos. ( 6 ) THE averments made in writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992 (lb) maybe summed up as follows: the muda has been constituted under Section 3 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', for the purpose of planned development of Mysore city as per the Provisions of the act; that it has published an advertisement in deccan herald, dated 12-1-1992 and other papers stating that it has decided to invite applications for allotment of sixteen thousand sites of various dimensions to certain categories of persons; that the said notification and the act of inviting applications for allotment of residential sites is not in accordance with the Provisions of the act; that the act of muda in inviting the applications has misled the public to believe that the applicants would get sites in the near future; that a large number of members of public have submitted the application forms to the muda under the belief that they would be the proud owners of sites in Mysore city; that under the aforesaid notification, registration fee of Rs. 2,000/- and an advance amount of Rs. 2,000/- and an advance amount of Rs. 18,225/- for a site of a dimension of 60' x 40' were required to be paid at the time of presenting the application; that one of the conditions specified in the notification is that "in case there is any hurdle in the allotment of sites, due to any reason, such as government Order, court injunction Order, land owners' objection, this notification will be cancelled and the amount of deposit will be returned to the applicants without any interest"; that the notification inviting the applications was therefore, a clear attempt on the part of the muda to hoodwink the public and it was clearly an action without any authority of law; that the public authority was to act within the four corners of the law and every action advancing the cause of public must be done without injuring their interest in any manner; that the muda has issued a notification on 6-2-1991 inviting applications for allotment of sites in areas of the city for allotment of nearly 3000 sites; that there are over one lakh applications in response to the said notification; that this act of the muda is only intended to extract money from the public and to exploit the gullible people holding out that sites would be allotted to them in the near future; that a sum of Rs. 15/- was to be paid for obtaining the application form; that having regard to the fact that the notification contains allotment of large number of sites, the number of application forms sold exceeded two lakhs; that the muda has not acquired the land comprised in vijayanagar iv stage, first and third phase (hinkal), dattagalli iii stage, first phase and vijayanagar iv stage - second phase in basavanahalli village; that the notifications under Section 17 (1) of the act are issued; that the government orders according sanction to the schemes under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the act are passed; that the procedure contemplated in sections 15 to 18 of the act was not followed; that the lands are not at all acquired inasmuch as no notification under Section 19 of the act is issued; that no layout is formed and could have been formed because the lands comprised in the schemes in question are not vested in the mud a; that muda has no jurisdiction to offer sites for allotment even before the acquisition formalities completed and developmental works are undertaken; that the mud a has transgressed the law and thereby it has caused incalculable injury to the public; that the notification inviting the applications has stirred the public of Mysore beyond imagination and has kindled a false hope in the public as no scheme could have been sanctioned and no layout could have been formed without the acquisition of the lands. The petitioners also contended that rule-3 of the city of Mysore improvement (allotment of sites) rules, 1972 held the field as no rules were framed under the act; that as per Rule 3 (1) of the rules "whenever the board, has formed an extension or layout in pursuance of any scheme, the board may, subject to the general or special orders of the government, offer any or all the sites in such extension or layout for allotment to persons eligible for allotment of sites under these rules". ( 7 ) ALONG with the writ petitions, the petitioners have produced four documents as annexures 'a' to 'd'. Annexure-A is the proforma of the application to be submitted pursuant to the impugned notification for grant of residential sites. ( 7 ) ALONG with the writ petitions, the petitioners have produced four documents as annexures 'a' to 'd'. Annexure-A is the proforma of the application to be submitted pursuant to the impugned notification for grant of residential sites. Annexure-B is the notification bearing notification No. Pla/66/91-92, dated 19-12-1991, issued under Section 17 (1) of the act and published in the newspaper 'andolana' dated 26th december, 1991, pertaining to dattagally scheme. Annexure-C is the notification bearing notification No. P. d. s: 3:91-92, dated 17th january, 1992 issued under Section 17 (1) of the act and published in the kannada issue of 'sanjayvani', dated 24th january, 1992 pertaining to hinakal - vijayanagar 4th stage - 1st and 3rd phase/extension; and Annexure-D is the notification bearing notification No. Muda-aas-notification-1-91-92, dated 9th january, 1992 inviting applications for allotment of sites, which is already referred to above. ( 8 ) THE averments made in writ petition No. 19357 of 1992, may be summed up as follows: the petitioner is a permanent resident of Mysore and he is a practicing Advocate and a tax-payer. It is also further averred by him that he is involved in social works and is very much concerned with the object of safeguarding the public interest and to avoid malpractices in various wings of the administration and fight against corruption. It is also further averred by him that he is involved in social works and is very much concerned with the object of safeguarding the public interest and to avoid malpractices in various wings of the administration and fight against corruption. It is averred that the 2nd respondent is appointed as the chairman of the muda only because he belongs to the arrack contractors clan of Shri s. Bangarappa, the then chief minister of karnataka; that he is the close associate of Shri s. Bangarappa; that as a quid pro quo for the favours he has been always receiving from Sri s. Bangarappa, the second respondent has been financing the then chief minister throughout notwithstanding that the damage that has caused to the purity of administration and the public interest; that the 2nd respondent has been appointed as chairman of muda in the aforesaid background and that this appointment is particularly aimed at favouring the 2nd respondent and through him make an arrangement for collecting huge amount of money for the private benefits; that the 2nd respondent emboldened by the patronage and support he is receiving from the then chief minister, he has become a law unto himself and freely violating every Provisions of law, sometimes openly declaring that he is above law; that the present attempt of the 2nd respondent is to siphon-out money for his private coffer, apparently at the instance of the then chief minister; that though several layouts had been formed earlier and constructions have come up, but no civic amenities such as water, electricity, drainage, etc. , to many of the layouts have been provided; that instead of providing civic amenities to the already formed layouts, new layouts have been taken up and applications are invited for allotment of about 16,000 house sites of various dimensions even though the land for formation of layouts comprising over 16,000 house sites has not been identified; that pursuant to the notification bearing No. Muda/pa/91-92, dated 9th january, 1992 several persons have applied; that 19lh may, 1992 was fixed for allotment of sites by the then chief minister; that no layout has been formed; that the programme is manipulated by making hurried arrangements to impress the general public that site seekers would get house sites if they make their applications for the purpose; that this has been done to extract funds from the applicants; that the members of the muda have already been favoured with an assurance that they would have a right to distribute 50 to 100 sites each; that the first respondent is governed by the act; that the formation of the layouts cannot be made without following the Provisions of the act; that no rules have been framed under the act; that the slate government has directed the muda to follow the rules comprised in Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984 for the purpose of allotment of sites; that there has not been any acquisition of lands for the alleged schemes in various places as stated in the impugned notification dated 9- 1-1992; therefore, the aet of calling for applications for allotment of over 16,000 house sites without acquisition of lands and without formation of layouts is nothing but a fraud and smacks of high level corruption; that after getting the allotment list released through the then chief minister on 19th may, 1992, the 2nd respondent had persuaded all the members of the muda to co-operate with the scheme by taking 50 to 100 sites for themselves, which would be distributed to such of the people identified by such members; that this is nothing but offering bribe to the members of the muda by enabling them to collect money for themselves and distribute house sites; that the 2nd respondent has already collected crores of rupees in this fashion by way of kick-backs and also helped several members who are ready to follow his footsteps to collect several lakhs of rupees for their personal benefits; thai without forming a layout and identifying the sites, respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded 10 mislead the people and collected the amount; that by this proccsss, respondent No. 1 would succeed in collecting enormous amount of money at the cost of the general public and escape, which will spell disaster both to the public interest and to the state exchequer; that the provisional selection list consists of the names of several persons who own building sites and arc not eligible for allotment of sites; that the entire list was prepared hy the 2nd respondent himself and released to the public through the then chief minister of Karnataka without even getting approval of the muda; that the muda is blindly submitting to the dictates of the 2nd respondent for the simple reason that the 2nd respondent, for all practical purposes, is wielding all the powers of the chief minister of karnataka; that it is the muda that should offer house sites in such extensions or layouts formed for allotment of sites to the persons eligible for allotment; that the 2nd respondent is not the muda; that the 2nd respondent has exceeded the authority and is trying to exercise the jurisdiction not vested in him; that without acquisition of land and without forming layout, no steps for calling for applications for allotment of sites can be taken; and as far as the entire action of the respondents 1 and 2 is concerned, it is opposed to the Provisions of the act. ( 9 ) IN writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992 (lb), the muda had filed anapplication (i. a. No. 1) dated 25-2-1992 for vacating the interim order passed in the writ petitions. In that, the muda had stated its complete defence and also produced seven documents, which were marked as annexures r-l to r-7. Annexure r-l is the invitation of the 16th annual general meeting of madhuvana griha nirmana sahakara sangh ltd. Annexures r-2 to r-4 are the lists of land owners to whom the amounts were stated to have been paid pursuant to agreement of sale. Annexure r-5 is the communication from the superintending engineer (elec.), Mysore circle, mysore, to the commissioner, muda, stating that the keb would make arrangements for supply of electrical energy to the newly formed layouts after duly preparing estimates, obtaining competent sanction and establishing 66 kvb. Sub-stations, as contemplated in the master plan of Mysore city for different layouts. Annexure r-6 is the list of the areas coming under the four development schemes in question. Annexure r-7 is the letter dated 17th july, 1991 written by the stale government to the commissioners of all urban development authorities in the state to follow the Bangalore development authority rules. In that application, the very locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the proceeding in question, was questioned. It has been specifically stated that more than fifty thousand applications are pending for consideration for allotment of sites; that the muda has taken up the formation of layout work on a war-footing basis by entrusting the layout formation work to nearly 350 contractors on piece-work basis; that the muda notified the scheme under Section 16 in respect of these layouts; that muda would need three months' time to verify the particulars of the applicants' eligibility and their bona fides; that this work of verification is in progress; that by the time the muda finalises the list of eligible applicants for allotment of sites, complete formation of layouts with all facilities such as, water supply, sewerage, lighting, etc. , would be completed; that the city of Mysore improvemcnt (allotment of sites) rules, 1972, as claimed by the petitioners, are not applicable to the allotment of sites in question, as those rules are no longer in force; thai the inviting of applications and formation of layouts can go hand in hand to save time and to avoid delay in distribution of sites; that pending finalisation of the rules, the state government has directed all the urban development authorities to follow the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules which are in force; that there is no basis in the allegation that the collection of registration fee and earnest money deposit by the muda is to exploit the gullible people by holding out that sites would be allotted in future; that muda is not violating any rules or regulations; that clause 6 in the impugned notification (Annexure-D) contemplates refund of deposits in case the distribution of sites stalled for whatever reasons such as government direction, court Order, etc. ; that the muda has no motive to enrich itself as alleged by the petitioners, on the other hand, the muda has come forward to take up distribution programme on a crash programme basis and see that the sites are allotted to the citizens/applicants in a reasonable time on 'no loss no profit' basis; that the muda is not transgressing the law and in this process it has not caused incalculable injury to the interest of the public; that the petitioners are only espousing the cause of vested interest on the guise of serving public, interest; that nearly 1806 acres of land is covered under the scheme; that under Section 35 of the Act, muda is entitled to purchase lands by entering into agreement with the owners of the lands; that by its resolution, muda intended to purchase lands by offering Rs. 50000/- per acre; that out of 1806acres covering all the schemes, the muda is able to purchase 502 acres by paying Rs. 50000/- per acre; that out of 1806acres covering all the schemes, the muda is able to purchase 502 acres by paying Rs. 2,51,18,125/- to the land owners; that it has taken possession of the said extent; that the negotiations to purchase the remaining portions of the lands are in progress and that the muda is processing the documents relating to 300-400 acres of lands which would be completed in another one week; that muda will be in possession of more than 800 acres out of the notified extent of lands; that this would enable muda to form sites; that the acquisition in respect of the remaining portion of land is in progress; that muda would be in a position to complete the land acquisition proceedings in two weeks time; that in the meanwhile the owners of the lands are coming forward with their willingness to transfer the lands and have offered to submit the original documents relating to the lands so that the process of getting compensation would be speeded up; that there is incentive scheme of the authority of offering certain number of sites to the land owners depending upon the extent of the land, the land owners lose at concessional rate and Rs. 50000/- is offered for one acre; that there is tremendous pressure on the muda by the land owners to take possession of the lands, that the muda expects that there may not be any problem for acquiring the lands because the land owners themselves have come forward to surrender the lands by accepting the amount of Rs. 50,000/- per acre, which they may not get if the lands are to be acquired as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and it would lake years and years, to complete the acquisition. 50,000/- per acre, which they may not get if the lands are to be acquired as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and it would lake years and years, to complete the acquisition. ( 10 ) IN the application-l. a. iv, filed on 14th august, 1992 in the writ appeals for vacating interim Order, the respondents have specifically stated that the muda in discharge of its statutory functions and duties, has drawn up the development schemes in respect of (1) vijayanagar 4th stage, 1st phase (hinkal); (2) vijayanagar 4th stage, 2nd phase (basavanahalli); (3) vijayanagar 4th stage, 3rd phase (hinkal), (4) Sri s. Bangarappa nagar 1st phase (dattagalli 3rd stage); and (5) nanjangud extension; that the notification under Section 17 of the act is issued; that the government has accorded sanction under Section 18 of the act; that by its publication dated 9-1-1992, muda has called for applications for allotment of sites from general public; that muda can acquire the land by entering into agreements with the owners of the land under the Provisions of the Act, therefore, il resolved to purchase the lands by agreement by offering Rs. 50,000/- per acre; that the muda has not taken up any further steps in respect of nanjangud layout in view of the order passed in the writ petitions; that the owners of the land have voluntarily come forward to hand over possession of the land by accepting the offer of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and one site at half rate; that the muda has already taken possession of 1220 acres of land out of 1806 acres pertaining to the aforesaid schemes other than nanjangud layout. ( 11 ) THE statement of objections filed on behalf of muda in writ petition No. 19357 of 1992 specifically states that the muda can acquire lands by agreement with the owners of the lands and accordingly resolved to purchase the land by agreement by offering Rs. ( 11 ) THE statement of objections filed on behalf of muda in writ petition No. 19357 of 1992 specifically states that the muda can acquire lands by agreement with the owners of the lands and accordingly resolved to purchase the land by agreement by offering Rs. 50000/- per acre plus one site at half price; that the muda has formed the layouts pursuant to the schemes; that 14622 sites other than corner sites and land-losers sites, are formed; that about 50,000 applications for allotment are pending before the muda; that all the improvements as specified in Section 30 have been provided for in the estimates; that it is not the intendment of the act that all the civic amenities are to be provided before allotment of sites; and all other allegations made in the petition are denied. In addition to this, the 2nd respondent has also filed separate statement of objections in which he has denied the allegations made against him in the wiil petition. ( 12 ) IN the light of these averments and the several contentions urged by bothsides, the following points arise for consideration: (1) whether the petitioner is entitled to prosecute the writ petition and the writ appeals? (2) whether the Mysore urban development authority and its chairman have followed the Provisions of the act in forming the development schemes, such as, (1) vijayanagar 4lh stage, 1st phase (hinkal); (2) vijayanagar 4th stage, 2nd phase (basavanahally); (3) vijayanagar 4th stage, 3rd phase (hinkal); (4) daltagalli iii phase; and (5) nanjangud extension; and calling for applications under the notification bearing No. Muda/aas. 1/91-92, dated 9-1-1922 published in the deccan herald, dated 12-1-1992, produced as annexure- d in writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992? (3) whether the action of Mysore urban development authority and its chairman is actuated by ulterior motive of making private gains? (4) what order?point No. 1: ( 13 ) AS already pointed out, W. P. nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992 were filed by four persons by name r. Nagarajan, k. l. ramesh, y. a. ramnalh and Smt. Girija. Out of them, the first two persons are the residents of Mysore and the last two persons are the residents of Bangalore. W. p. No. 19357 of 1992 is filed by one y. Mahesh, advocate, mysore. During the pendency of w. a. nos. Out of them, the first two persons are the residents of Mysore and the last two persons are the residents of Bangalore. W. p. No. 19357 of 1992 is filed by one y. Mahesh, advocate, mysore. During the pendency of w. a. nos. 506 to 509 of 1992 which were preferred by the original writ petitioners, they filed a memo dated 3-8-1992 to withdraw the appeals. The petitioner in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992 had also filed an application in the writ appeals to implead him as one of the appellants. In other words, he sought for permission to continue the writ appeals. In that application he has stated that the respondents have pressurised the appellants to withdraw the appeals by alluring them with attractive offers and the appellants have succumbed to such attraction and have sought for withdrawing the appeals in consideration of the huge amount of kick-backs offered to them. considering the averments made in the application for impleading made by the petitioner in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992, we allowed the application by the order dated 18-s-1992 which has been extracted in para 2 of this judgment and permitted the applicant to continue the appeals and directed the names of the original appellants to be deleted. Accordingly, the cause title of the appeals was amended. ( 14 ) IT is the contention of the respondents that neither the original appellants nor the present appellant who is also the petitioner in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992 have/has locus standi to maintain the writ petitions and seek the reliefs as sought for by them. The learned single judge, as already pointed out, has dismissed the writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992 on the ground that the petitioners have not established sufficient interest in maintaining the writ petitions. We are of the view that neither the contention of the respondents in this regard nor the conclusion of the learned single judge can be accepted as correct. ( 15 ) THE original petitioners in W. P. nos. 2855 to 2s58 of 1992 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992 have approached this court to direct the muda to act in accordance with the Provisions of the Act, the rules framed thereunder and the regulations and not to do any act which it has not been authorised by law. 2855 to 2s58 of 1992 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992 have approached this court to direct the muda to act in accordance with the Provisions of the Act, the rules framed thereunder and the regulations and not to do any act which it has not been authorised by law. In other words, their attempt is to ensure that the Rule of law is maintained. it is the mandate of the Constitution that the stale and the statutory authorities must conform to the Provisions of the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Muda is constituted under the act. It has to act in accordance with the Provisions of the Act, more so, in the matter of execution of the development schemes as contemplated under chapter iii of the act. Every citizen residing within the area of operation of the muda is entitled to challenge the action of the muda if it, in the purported execution of the development schemes, completely ignores the Provisions of the Act, the rules and the regulations and tries to exercise the power not vested in it or does any act which is not authorised by law and thereby causes injury to the public interest. in the instant case, it is the grievance of the petitioners - that the various schemes in question are not being executed in accordance with the Provisions of the act because the lands owned by several persons covered by the development schemes in question have not been acquired in accordance with law, and thus they are not vested in the muda; that even otherwise, the title to the lands is not acquired by purchase inter vivos, as such the steps taken by the muda to call for the applications along with the registration fee and advance deposits for allotment of sites and thereby collecting several crores of rupees from the innocent applicants is nothing but a fraud committed on the public and a fraud on the power of the muda. Therefore, they have sought for quashing the notification under which applications are called for, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. it is not possible to comprehend and appreciate the contention of the respondents as to locus standi and the decision of the learned single judge in this regard. Therefore, they have sought for quashing the notification under which applications are called for, and all further proceedings pursuant thereto. it is not possible to comprehend and appreciate the contention of the respondents as to locus standi and the decision of the learned single judge in this regard. When the contentions raised by the petitioners go to the very root of the matter and challenge the very authority of the muda to proceed with the implementation of the development scheme and the manner in which it has tried to proceed, it is open to the petitioners to approach this court under article 226 of the Constitution for seeking such a relief, and when such an act of the statutory authority is brought to the notice of the court, it becomes the constitutional obligation on the part of this court to examine and to satisfy as to whether the action of the statutory authority which affects the public at large is in accordance wilh the Provisions of the act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. In the event it is found that such an act is not in conformity with the Provisions of the act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder and it affects the public at large, it is obligatory on the part of this court to set aside the unauthorised act and thereby stop the mischief that is being caused by such an act. in Bangalore medical trust v b. s. muddappa and others, AIR 1991 SC 1902 , a question as to whether the residents of the locality can challenge the action of the state government in granting the land reserved for public park for establishing a hospital came up for consideration. In that case, the Supreme Court held thus:"36. Locus stand! To approach by way of writ petition and refusal to grant relief in equity jurisdiction are two different aspects, may be with same result. One relates to maintainability of the petition and oilier to exercise of discretion. Law on the former has marched much ahead. Many milestones have been covered. The restricted meaning of aggrieved person and narrow outlook of specific injury has yielded in favour of broad and wide construction in wake of public interest litigation. One relates to maintainability of the petition and oilier to exercise of discretion. Law on the former has marched much ahead. Many milestones have been covered. The restricted meaning of aggrieved person and narrow outlook of specific injury has yielded in favour of broad and wide construction in wake of public interest litigation. Even in private challenge to executive or Administrative Action having extensive fall out the dividing line between personal injury or loss and injury of a public nature is fast vanishing. Law has veered round from genuine grievance against order affecting prejudicially to sufficient interest in the matter. The rise in exercise of power by the executive and comparative decline in proper and effective administrative guidance is forcing citizens to espouse challenges with public interest flavour, li is too late in the day, therefore, to claim that petition filed by inhabitants of a locality whose park was converted into a nursing home had no cause to invoke equity jurisdiction of the high court. In fact public spirited citizens having faith in Rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing cause of public nature. They cannot be ignored or overlooked on technical or conservative yardstick of the Rule of locus standi or absence of personal loss or injury. Present day development of this branch of jurisprudence is towards freer movement both in nature of litigation and approach of the courts. Residents of locality seeking protection and maintenanee of environment of their locality cannot be said to be busy bodies or interlopers (s. p. gupta v union of india, AIR 1982 SC 149 ). Even otherwise physical or personal or economic injury may give rise to civil or criminal action but violation of Rule of law either by ignoring or affronting individual or action of the executive in disregard of the Provisions of law raises substantial issue of accountability of those entrusted with responsibility of the administration. It furnishes enough cause of action either for individual or community in general to approach by way of writ petition and the authorities cannot be permitted to seek shelter under cover of technicalities of locus standi nor they can be heard to plead for restraint in exercise of discretion as grave issues of public concern outweigh such considerations. It furnishes enough cause of action either for individual or community in general to approach by way of writ petition and the authorities cannot be permitted to seek shelter under cover of technicalities of locus standi nor they can be heard to plead for restraint in exercise of discretion as grave issues of public concern outweigh such considerations. " (emphasis supplied) in bandhua mukti morcha v union of India and others, AIR 1984 SC 802 , the question as to locus standi to maintain the petition under article 226 was also considered. In thatcase, the petition was filed by an organisation dedicated to the cause of bonded labourers in the country. The petitioner therein pointed out exploitations of labourers in the mining and inhuman treatment meted to them and sought for appropriate remedies for stopping such cruel acts. In that case, the state government as well as the lessees of the mine raised an objection that the letter written by the petitioner has been treated as a writ petition but it cannot support a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution as no fundamental right of the petitioner or the workmen on whose behalf the writ petition was filed, was infringed. In that decision, the Supreme Court observed that it was incomprehensible that the state government should urge such a preliminary objection with a view to stiffling at the threshold an enquiry by the court as to whether the workmen were living in bondage and under inhuman conditions. !t was also further observed thus:"we have on more occasions than one stated that public interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation. . . . . "again in s. p. gupta and others v president of India and others, AIR 19s2 SC 149, it has been held regarding locus standi that a person who has suffered a legal injury to his person or property alone is entitled to relief, is a Rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the legal scene and public law had not yet been born. After referring to the various stages of the development of law as to locus standi, it has been held thus:"it may therefore, now be taken as well-established that where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness, or disability or socially or economically disad- vaniaged position unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the high court under article 226 and. . . . . . . . . . . . the court would therefore, unhesitatingly and without the slightest qualms of conscience cast aside the technical rules of procedure in the exercise of its dispensing power and treat the letter of the public-minded individual as a writ petition and act upon it. "thus the conspectus of these decisions must lead us to a conclusion that the writ petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have no locus standi and the writ petitions are entitled to be decided on merits and in accordance with jaw. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. Point nos. 2 and 3: ( 16 ) FROM the case pleaded by the respondents-muda and its chairman and also the state government and the records produced by them, the following facts emerge: the muda has taken up five development schemes in Mysore known as the vijayanagar 4th stage - 1st phase (hinkal); vijayanagar 4th stage - 2nd phase (basavanahalli); vijayanagar 4th stage - 3rd phase (hinkal); Sri s. Bangarappa nagar - 1st phase (dattagalli 3rd stage); and nanjangud extension. Notifications as required by sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the act in respect of each of these development schemes have been published. The notice as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the act on the persons whose names appear in the land revenue register are claimed to have been served. Notifications as required by sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the act in respect of each of these development schemes have been published. The notice as required by sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the act on the persons whose names appear in the land revenue register are claimed to have been served. The state government has also accorded sanction to the schemes as per sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the act. Permission for using the agricultural land for non-agriculiural purpose has also been accorded. Copies of the notifications published under sub-section (3) of Section 17 and the sanction accorded under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the act and also the orders according permission for using the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose are also produced. The detailed estimates in respect of each of the schemes as per the Provisions of Section 18 of the act are also produced. it is the case of the respondents that it is open to the muda to purchase the lands comprised in the schemes and it is not necessary for it to proceed to acquire the same in accordance with the Provisions of the act read with the Land Acquisition Act. In the statement of objections filed in W. P. No. 19357 of 1992 and the application dated 25-2-1992 filed in writ petition nos. 2855 to 2858 of 1992, the respondents have specifically taken a stand that instead of acquiring all the lands comprised in the various development schemes in question, the muda has resolved to purchase the lands under agreement by offering, Rs. 50,000/- per acre. It has also specifically stated that out of the total extent of 1806 acres comprised in the schemes, the muda has been able to purchase 502 acres of paying a sum of Rs. 2,51,18,125/- to the land owners and has taken possession of the said extent of land. In the statement of objections filed on 14th august, 1992 in W. P. No. 19357 of 3992, it has been stated thus:". . . . . . the authority resolved to purchase the land by agreement by offering Rs. 50. 000/- per acre. The authority did not take any further steps in respect of nanjangud layout in view of the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble court in writ petition. . . . . . the authority resolved to purchase the land by agreement by offering Rs. 50. 000/- per acre. The authority did not take any further steps in respect of nanjangud layout in view of the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble court in writ petition. The owners of the lands have voluntarily come forward to handover the possession of their lands by accepting the offer of Rs. 50. 000/-, plus one site at half the price. The authority has already taken possession of about 1270 acres out of 1806 acres pertaining to abovementioned schemes (other than nanjangud layout) by paying compensation of about Rs. 6 crores. The authority has formed the layout in pursuance of the schemes. 14,622 sites (other than corner sites and land-losers sites) are formed with site numbers, boundary and they are ready for allotment. About 50,000 applications for allotment arc pending before the authority. The applications are processed through the computers. . . . . . " but in the application dated 25-2-1992 filed in W. P. nos. 2855 to 285s of 1992 only an extent of 502 acres of land was alleged to have been purchased under an agreement of sale and possession had been obtained. The layouts had not been formed. Several contractors were employed for forming the layouts and for laying the roads, erecting culverts, formation of drainages, fixation of boundary stones, etc. (as per the statement made in para 6 of that application ). In this regard the case of the respondents is that development schemes need not be fully executed before calling for the applications for allotment of sites. Formation of layout, laying of the roads, providing drainages and all other requirements that are necessary for completing the schemes and calling for applical ion for allotment of sites can go on simultaneously. Thus on the date the impugned notification, dated 9-1-1992 was published in the issue of 12th january, 1992 of deccan herald, neither the lands involved in the schemes were acquired in accordance with law nor the title of the said lands had vested in the muda and the development schemes were also not completed. Thus on the date the impugned notification, dated 9-1-1992 was published in the issue of 12th january, 1992 of deccan herald, neither the lands involved in the schemes were acquired in accordance with law nor the title of the said lands had vested in the muda and the development schemes were also not completed. ( 17 ) THE main thrust of the arguments of the petitioners is that as per the Provisions of the Act, no development scheme can be implemented and the applications for allotment of sites can be notified without acquiring the lands comprised in the development scheme/s and without completing the development schemes in all respects. The purchase of the lands comprised in the development scheme/s through negotiations is not at all permissible. The schemes had not been fully implemented on the dates when the applications were called for under the impugned notification. Therefore, the action of the mudaand its chairman in calling for applications for the allotment of sites on receiving registration fee and advance money deposit from each of the applicants is wholly without the authority of law and is intended to make private gains. ( 18 ) IN order to determine the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to therelevant Provisions of the act. The act has been enacted with an avowed object of providing for the establishment of urban development au thorities for the planned development of major and important urban areas in the state and the areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. the act defines the expression 'amenity' to include road, street lighting, drainage, public works and such other conveniences as the government may, by notification, specify to be an amenity for the purposes of the act. The expression 'civic amenity' has also been defined to mean a market, a post office, a bank, a fair price shop, a milk booth, a school, a dispensary, a maternity home, a child care centre, a library, a gymnasium, a recreation centre run by the government or local authority, a police station, an area office or a service station of the local authority or the Karnataka urban water supply and drainage board or the Karnataka electricity board and such other amenity as the government may by notification specify. Similarly the expression 'development' is defined to mean the carrying out of building, engineering or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes planning and development. chapter ii of the act relates to Constitution and incorporation of the urban development authority and other matters relating thereto such as disqualification for office of the members of the urban development authority; term of office and conditions of service of members; removal of members; eligibility for reappointment; meeting of the authority; appointment of committees; power of different authorities; appointment of commissioner; and powers and duties of the commissioner. Section 14 of the act specifically provides as to the objects of the authority. It specifically states that the object of the authority shall be planning and promoting and securing the development of the urban area and for those purposes the authority shall have the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of moveable and immovable property, whether within 01 outside the urban area under its jurisdiction, to carry out building, engineering and other operations, and generally to do all things necessary or expedient for the purpose of such development and for purposes incidental thereto. chapter iii of the act deals with the schemes of development. Sections 15 to 34 fall in this chapter. For our purpose all the Provisions are not relevant to be referred to. The sections that are relevant are sections 15,16,17,18 and 19 of the act. chapter iv of the act consists of two sections, viz. , sections 35 and 36 which are also relevant for our purpose. 18. 5. Under Section 15 of the Act, the authority is empowered to draw up detailed schemes for the development of the urban area with the previous approval of the government. It is also open to the authority which in the instant case is the muda to take up any new or additional development schemes on its own initiative, if it has got sufficient resources or it can take up the development schemes on the recommendation of the local authority provided the local authority makes available the necessary funds for forming and carrying out any scheme. The government can also whenever it deems it necessary, require the authority to take up any development scheme or work and execute it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the state government. As per Section 16 of the act every development scheme under Section 15 of the act shall within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme, provide for the following:a) the acquisition of any land which in the opinion of the authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme; b) laying and relaying out all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation and alteration of streets; c) drainage, water supply and electricity; d) reservation of not less than fifteen per cent of the total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than ten per cent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities. sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 16 of the act further provide that the authority may raise any land if it considers expedient to raise to facilitate better drainage; forming open spaces for the better ventilation of the area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area; and the sanitary arrangements required. It also provides for the construction of houses. Section 17 of the act provides as to the procedure to be followed on the preparation of the scheme as per the Provisions of Section 16 of the act. It specifically provides that when a development scheme has been prepared, the authority shall drawn up a notification stating the fact of a scheme having been made and limits of the area comprised therein, and naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied may have to be seen at all reasonable hours. A copy of the said notification shall have to be sent to the local authority, which shall within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the authority for transmission to the government any representation which the local authority may think fit to make with regard to the scheme. A copy of the said notification shall have to be sent to the local authority, which shall within thirty days from the date of receipt thereof, forward to the authority for transmission to the government any representation which the local authority may think fit to make with regard to the scheme. In addition to this, the authority is also required to cause a copy of the said notification to be published in two consecutive issues of local newspapers having wide circulation in the area and affixed in some con spicuous part ofits own office, the deputy commissioner's office, the office of the local authority and in such other places as the authority may consider necessary. In case no representation is received from the local authority within the time specified, the concurrence of the local authority to the scheme shall be deemed to have been given. Sub-section (5) of Section 17 further provides that during the thirty days next following the day on which such notification is published in the local newspapers, the authority shall serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the authority proposes to recover betterment tax requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of receiving the notice as to why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made. The notice shall have to be signed by or by the order of the commissioner and shall have to be served in the manner provided in sub-section (6) thereof. Section 18 of the act provides for the sanction of scheme and Section 19 provides that upon sanction of the scheme, a declaration has to be published giving particulars of land to be acquired for the purpose of this scheme and other matters. It is necessary to reproduce sections 18 and 19 of the Act, which are as follows:"18. Sanction of scheme. It is necessary to reproduce sections 18 and 19 of the Act, which are as follows:"18. Sanction of scheme. (1) after publication of the scheme and service of notices as provided in Section 17 and after consideration of representations, if any, received in respect thereof, the authority shall submit the scheme making such modifications, therein as it may think fit to the government for sanction, furnishing, (a) description with full particulars of the scheme including the reasons for any modifications inserted therein, (b) complete plans and estimates of the cost of executing the scheme; (c) a statement specifying the land proposed to be acquired; (d) any representation received under sub-section (2) of Section 17; (e) a schedule showing the ratable value as entered in the municipal assessment book on the date of the publication of a notification relating to the land under Section 17 or the land assessment of all lands specified in the statement under clause (c) and; (f) such other particulars, if any, may be prescribed. (2) where any development scheme provides for the construction of houses, the authority shall also submit to the government plans and estimate for the construction of the houses. (3) after considering the proposal submitted to il the government may, by Order, give sanction to the scheme. ""19. Upon sanction, declaration to be published giving particulars of land to be acquired. (1) upon sanction of the scheme, the government shall publish in the official gazette declaration stating the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the authority for the purposes of the scheme is required for a public purpose. (2) the declaration shall state the limits within which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area and the place where a plan of the land may be inspected. (3) the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and the authority shall, upon the publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. (4) if at any time it appears to the authority that an improvement can be made in any part of the scheme, the authority may alter the scheme for the said purpose and shall subject to the Provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) forthwith proceed to execute the scheme as altered. (4) if at any time it appears to the authority that an improvement can be made in any part of the scheme, the authority may alter the scheme for the said purpose and shall subject to the Provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) forthwith proceed to execute the scheme as altered. (5) if the estimated cost of executing the scheme as altered exceeds by a greater sum than five per cent of the estimated cost of executing the scheme as sanctioned, the authority shall not, without the previous sanction of the government, proceed to execute the scheme, as altered. (6) if the scheme as altered involves the acquisition otherwise than by agreement, of any land other than the land specified in the schedule referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 18, the Provisions of sections 17 and 18 and of sub-section (1) of this Section shall apply to the part of the scheme so altered in the same manner as if such altered part were the scheme. (7) the authority shall not denotify or reconvey any land included in the scheme without the specific orders of the government. (8) the authority shall not allot any land to any individual, organisation or authority, the civic amenity area earmarked in the scheme without the orders of the government. "at this stage itself sections 35 and 36 of the Act, which are as follows, may also be referred to:"35. Authority to have power to acquire land by agreement. subject to the Provisions of this act and with the previous approval of the government, the authority may enter into an agreement with the owner of any land or any interest therein, situated within the urban area for the purchase of such land. 36. Provisions applicable to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement. (1) the acquisition of land under this act otherwise than by agreement within or without the urban area shall be regulated by the Provisions, so far as they are applicable of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the authority shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned. (2) for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the authority shall be deemed to be the local authority concerned. (3) after the land vests in the government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the deputy commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of the acquisition, and upon the authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the authority, and the land shall thereupon vest in the authority. " ( 19 ) A reading of the Provisions contained in sections 15 to 19,35 and 36 of the act would lead to an inevitable conclusion that the development schemes are to be drawn up and executed by the authority (muda) as per the Provisions of sections 15 to 19 and 36 of the act. The authority is the creature of the act which prescribes in detail the manner and the mode to be adopted for drawing up detailed development scheme and execution of the same. The authority cannot enjoy or exercise any power which falls outside the Provisions of the act. In otherwords, it has to perform its functions, discharge its duties and exercise its power only in accordance with the Provisions contained in the act. The Provisions contained in sections 15 to 19 and 36 of the act are mandatory in nature. The expression "shall" is used in sections 16 to 19 and 36 of the act with reference to the acts to be performed by the authority. Therefore, the authority has to strictly adhere to the manner and the mode provided under sections 15 to 19 and 36 of the act in drawing up and execution of the development scheme. According to Section 16 of the Act, the development scheme, comprising the lands belonging to private individuals, can be executed only by acquiring the same. Therefore, under Section 16 of the Act, the authority, i. e. , muda has to necessarily identify the land necessary for the scheme and to provide for acquisition of such lands which are necessary for, or affected by the execution of the scheme. Therefore, under Section 16 of the Act, the authority, i. e. , muda has to necessarily identify the land necessary for the scheme and to provide for acquisition of such lands which are necessary for, or affected by the execution of the scheme. The notification prepared under Section 17 (1) of the Act, published under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the act and sent to the local authority under sub-section (2) thereof, has to contain a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which the betterment tax may be levied. It is because of this sub-section (5) of Section 17 specifically provides serving of notices on the persons whose lands are proposed to be acquired and whose names appear in the land revenue register, as being primarily liable to pay land revenue. Section 18 of the Act, which deals with the sanction of the schemes by the state government, extracted above, specifically provides that the authority shall submit the scheme to the state government for sanction furnishing details of the scheme as stated in that section. One of the requirements is to furnish a statement specifying the land proposed to be acquired. The other requirement is to furnish a complete plan and estimate of the cost of executing the scheme. In addition to this, there are other particulars which are also to be furnished as contained in that section. After receipt of the scheme, the state government on considering the proposal, may accord sanction to the scheme. After sanction is accorded by the slate government, a declaration has to be published by the state government in the official gazette staling the fact of such sanction and that the land proposed to be acquired by the authority for the purposes of the scheme is required for public purpose. The declaration shall have to state the limits in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area and the place and where the plan of the land may be inspected. Such a declaration, published as per the Provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 of the Act, shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose and the authority shall upon publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. Such a declaration, published as per the Provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 of the Act, shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose and the authority shall upon publication of the said declaration, proceed to execute the scheme. thus the notification published under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the act and the declaration published as per sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 of the act are equivalent to the preliminary and final notifications issued under sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) respectively of the Land Acquisition Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the act also further provides that the declaration published under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the act shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and it is only thereupon that the authority can proceed to execute the scheme. Therefore, from sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the act it follows that the authority can proceed to execute the scheme only after the publication of the declaration in the official gazette as per sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 of the act. It is after publication of the declaration as per sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, further proceedings as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have to be followed; compensation has to be determined; amount has to be deposited; then the state government has to take possession of the land and thereafter the land will vest in the state government under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is after vesting of the land in the state government, the deputy commissioner shall, upon payment of the cost of acquisition and upon the authority agreeing to pay any further costs which may be incurred on account of the acquisition, transfer the land to the authority and the land shall thereupon vest in the authority (muda) as provided under Section 36 of the act. ( 20 ) IN the instant case, admittedly, the procedure required to be followed asper the Provisions of sections 19 and 36 of the act is not followed. No declaration as per sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the act containing the particulars stated in sub-section (2) thereof is published. Consequently, no award is passed and the compensation payable to the persons interested in the land is not determined. No declaration as per sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the act containing the particulars stated in sub-section (2) thereof is published. Consequently, no award is passed and the compensation payable to the persons interested in the land is not determined. Therefore, the extent of the land comprised in the schemes in question has not vested either in the state or in the muda ( 21 ) THE contention of the respondents is that Section 35 of the act enables the muda to purchase the land by agreement instead of acquiring it, therefore, muda has acted well within its authority in entering into an agreement with the land-owners to purchase the land at the rale of Rs. 50,000/- per acre plus one site at half the rate. The records produced before us disclose that the muda resolved on 22-10-1990 to purchase the land under agreement on the terms stated in the resolution which is as follows:"7. Consideration of payment of higher compensation to the owners of land who surrender the land on mutual consent. After a detailed discussion it was resolved to fix the uniform rate at Rs. 50,000/- per acre to all the villages wherever lands are acquired by muda under mutual consent. With regards to the incentive scheme proposed, further clarification was sought from the bda. It is learnt that the bda is allotting sites at regular rales under incentive scheme published in the gazelte notification No. Hud 750 mnx 87, daled 9-11-1980. Muda may adopi the same scheme without any modification. The sites shall be allotted to ihe land losers as per ihe slab given below: