ORDER : J. N. Bhatt, J. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Barodaon 1-5-1995 under Section 84C(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act for short), directing for feiture of the land bearing survey number 69/1 (final plot No. 509) ad measuring 5573 sq. mts. situated at Bapood, taluka and district-Baroda held by the petitioners. 2. The competent authority and the Deputy Collector, Baroda.had passed an order on 17-10-1988 declaring that the petitioners are holding surplus lands to the extent of 7930sq. mts under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('ULC Act' for short). 3. The petitioners applied for development of lands permitted to be retained by them under the ULC Act to the Baroda Municipal Corporation. The Deputy Town Planning Officer of the Corporation issued development permission on 21-1-1988 under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('Town Planning Act' for short). The petitioners started construction work on the land in question and obtained plinth checking certificate from the development officer on 20-12-1988 as according to the petitioners, there was no obligation to obtain any permission from any other authority in view of the provisions of Section 117 of the Town Planning Act. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the legal position expounded by this Court, the revenue authorities insisted for permission under the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the petitioners were required to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 964 of 1994. The said petition came to be withdrawn as the petitioners desired to ventilate their grievances before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). Permission was granted by this Court on 10-10-1994. 5. The petitioners thereafter filed revision application Nos. 9 and 10 of 1994 before the Secretary to Government. Revenue Department (Appeals) Ahmedabad who by his order dated 16-2-1995 allowed the said appeals and quashed the order of the Collector dated 8-12-1993 and remanded the matters to him with a direction to pass appropriate order within thirty days regularising the construction put up by the petitioners on the land in question subject to conditions laid down in the said order. Thereafter, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Mamlatdar and ALT, Baroda requesting him to drop the proceedings under Section MC of the Tenancy Act in view of provisions of Section 117 of the Town Planning Act and also the directions given by the competent authority in the aforesaid appeals. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position, the Mamlatdar and ALT, Baroda proceeded to dispose of the proceedings under Section 84C on the basis that the land in question was governed by the provisions of the Tenancy Act and he also directed, in the impugned order, that the land in question be forfeited to the Government under Section 84C of the Tenancy Act. Hence, this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were granted development permission by the Municipal Corporation under the Town Planning Act. Once development permission is granted under Section 29 of the Town Planning Act for development of the land, then it is not necessary to obtain permission under any other law for such development. This proposition of law is very clear from a bare reading of Section 117 of the Town Planning Act. Section 117 reads as under: "117. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force : (a) When permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed lobe unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has not been obtained. (b) When permission for such development has not been obtained under this Act, such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such development has been obtained". 7. It could very well be seen from the aforesaid provisions that once development permission is granted pursuant to Section 29 of the Town Planning Act, then it is not necessary to obtain permission, approval or sanction under any other law for such development. 7. It could very well be seen from the aforesaid provisions that once development permission is granted pursuant to Section 29 of the Town Planning Act, then it is not necessary to obtain permission, approval or sanction under any other law for such development. Since the petitioners have obtained development permission under Section 29 of the Town Planning Act, obviously they are not required to obtain permission under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act for conversion of land in view of the clear proposition laid down by the legislature under Section 117 of the Town Planning Act. Again, this proposition of law is very much expounded and explained by this Court in the case of Karimbhai Kalubhai Belim v. State of Gujarat reported in 1996 (1) Guj LH 200 and Special Civil Application No. 887 of 1995 decided by this Bench on 20-3-1996. It has been clearly held that once permission for development under Section 29 of the Town Planning Act is granted, no permission, approval or sanction required under any other law for such development will not constitute any legal hurdle in development of the land. Thus, the impugned order recorded by the Mamlatdar and ALT is totally unjust, perverse and illegal requiring interference of this Court. 8. In the result, the impugned order of the Mamlatdar and ALT dated 1-5-1995 is quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Petition allowed.