JUDGMENT 1. :- Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under. 2. Shri Rinesh Gupta, a practising Advocate in the High Court of Rajasthan, filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5787/96 stating it to be a writ petition, filed in public interest. 3. One Shyam Babu Pareek addressed a letter to Hon'ble Judge of this High Court complaining certain violations partly relating to the subject matter in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5787/96. The said letter was treated as public interest litigation and it was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5877/96. 4. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the writ petitions by the common order dated 27.6.1997. Aggrieved parties have filed these appeals. 5. Since in these appeals, common questions are involved on similar facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. For convenience, the parties in this judgment shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petitions. 7. The petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5787/96 has sought for direction to the State Government and its functionaries including the Jaipur Development Authority (for short 'the J.D.A.'), the Rajasthan Housing Board (for short 'the Housing Board') and the Municipal Corporation to take strict and firm action thereby stopping, closing/removing the commercial establishments and commercial centers i.e. fast food centres, hotels, hospitals, marriage lawn/homes, restaurants, small scale industries from the residential areas, as they are being run illegally and without seeking proper permission under the Urban Improvement (Change of use of Residential Land or Premises for Commercial Purpose) Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules of 1974'); to direct the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department and the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the Electricity Board') not to give water and electricity connections to the existing commercial establishments in the residential areas; to direct the Finance Secretary that he should direct the Commercial Taxes Department to get the survey conducted by the independent authority or a team of higher officers in the matter of tax evasion; to direct the Home Secretary and the Excise Commissioner to take proper and firm action under the Excise Act and Rules against the persons who are running wine shops/beer bars in the residential areas; and to direct the Secretary, Medical and Health Department to initiate action against those running hospitals, nursing homes etc. which are being run in the residential areas without proper sanction and to dose the same. 8. In the writ petition, notices were issued. On the stay application, while issuing notices, the respondents were restrained from granting permission to any person or group of persons for changing the use of land from residential purpose to commercial purpose till the disposal of the writ petition. 9. On 7.5.1997, it was brought to the notice of the Court that in most of the localities of Jaipur City, the plots allotted for residential purpose have been converted into commercial purpose in the form of shops, hotels etc., which are causing much hardship and inconvenience to the residents of the localities and that the Housing Board and the J.D.A. have failed in performing their statutory duties in preventing the conversion of residential buildings into commercial buildings. Under the circumstances, it was considered proper that a public notice should be issued intimating the general public about the hearing of the case, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations- Such notice was published in daily newspapers. The person interested were directed to file objections before the Court by 16.5.1997. 10. In the common order under appeals, the learned Single Judge has summarised the facts noticing that in most of the localities of Jaipur City, residential buildings were being used for commercial purposes in the form of shops, cinemas, hotels, marriage lawns/homes, fast food centres etc.; the change of user is causing hardship and inconvenience to the residents of the localities; the respondents particularly the J.D.A. and the Housing Board have failed to discharge their statutory duties in preventing the change of user of residential buildings to that of commercial establishment; the respondents no.1 to 5, 11 and 12, in their counter affidavit, have not taken any positive stand on the issue; (i) whether a residential colony can be converted into a commercial colony ? and (ii) whether the J.D.A. is competent to grant permission for change of user of land from residential to commercial; the learned Single Judge also noticed that in the counter affidavit filed by the J.D.A., the J.D.A. does not dispute the allegations of the petitioner that the residential colonies and houses in Jaipur City are being converted into commercial/business establishments in large number and that in the cases brought to the notice of the J.D.A., actions are not being taken against such persons; the J.D.A. has not raised the specific plea that it has power to allow the conversion of residential locality into commercial locality. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Housing Board, it is stated the Housing Board is responsible for allotment of the housing sites to the persons and it has been specifically stated that the Housing Board does not provide any sanction for establishing any commercial establishment. However, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that large number of residential colonies are being converted into commercial colonies and that in many residential areas of Jaipur City, the commercial activities are going on and the commercial establishments are being established in flagrant violation of law. 12. The stand of the Electricity Board is that it has to supply the electricity in accordance ,with the provisions of Section 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also under section 78 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. 13. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Nagar Nigam Jaipur, the allegations made by the petitioner in the public interest litigation have not been denied. 14. After narrating these facts, the learned Single Judge concluded that the allegations made by the petitioner that the residential colonies are being changed to the commercial purposes like hotels, restaurants, fast food centers, wine shops, small scale industries etc. have been established beyond doubt. 15. In response to the public notice issued in the newspapers, reference to which has already been made above, 27 persons filed their objections. Those objections were taken on record and their learned Advocates were also heard by the learned Single Judge. 16. have been established beyond doubt. 15. In response to the public notice issued in the newspapers, reference to which has already been made above, 27 persons filed their objections. Those objections were taken on record and their learned Advocates were also heard by the learned Single Judge. 16. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and the learned counsel for 27 applicants, who responded to the public notice, the learned Single Judge set out the following questions for determination "(i) Whether commercial activities are going on in the, various residential localities of Jaipur City ? and if so; (ii) Whether in such localities the use has been changed from residential to that of commercial purposes under the proper approval/ permission of the concerned authorities under the provisions of the relevant act, rules and regulations ?" 17. The writ petitions were finally disposed of allowing them at the stage of admission, giving various directions. In effect and substance, the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the common order under appeals are : (i) the J.D.A. is directed to stop the user of 24 named commercial establishments, wherein commercial activities are going on contrary to the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act of 1982); (ii) the respondents were directed to initiate action against such establishments as provided under section 17(5) of the Act of 1982, to pull down, demolish or remove such establishments and the J.D.A. would also be entitled to recover the cost of such demolition or removal from the owners of the establishments; (iii) the J.D.A. is also directed to stop the user of such other residential buildings which are being used for industrial purposes and also to take action against them under section 17(5) of the Act of 1982 forthwith. It would also be open to the J.D.A. to launch prosecution against the owners of such establishments, as provided under section 33 of the Act of 1982; (iv) the J.D.A. is restrained from granting any permission for change of use of residential premises into commercial purposes without making modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur region and all such permissions granted after the commencement of the Act of 1982 shall be deemed to be null and void; (v) the Municipal Corporation and the Housing Board were also restrained from passing any such order granting permission for change of user of residential premises into commercial purposes, as the J.D.A. alone is competent authority to grant such permission; (vi) the State of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary was directed to ensure strict compliance of the order passed by the Court; (vii) the Home Secretary of the State of Rajasthan was directed to issue instructions to the Director General of Police, Jaipur for providing adequate and necessary police force, if required for carrying out the directions of the Court, to the J.D.A.; (viii) the Secretary, Housing Board was also directed to ensure that the directions issued by the Court are followed by the J.D.A. without any delay and in case the Commissioner, J.D.A. or other authorities competent to carry out the directions fail to discharge their duties, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against them also. 18. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants (affected parties) contended that several disputed questions of fact arose for consideration in the writ petitions, hence, the learned Single Judge was not right in allowing the writ petitions and giving directions; the directions given are very wide and incapable of execution; some of the directions seriously affecting the rights of the parties, are given without notice and opportunity to them; there was no notification issued under section 17(1) of the Act of 1982 and, as such, the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Act of 1982 could not be invoked; the first Master Plan was notified on 4.6.1976; the learned Single Judge did not examine whether the construction and use of land made earlier or subsequent to 4.6.1976 could come within Section 17(5) of the Act of 1982; the learned Single Judge also did not properly examine as to the effect of Section 72 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959'), Section 101 of the Act of 1982 and other relevant provisions; it was also not examined by the learned Single Judge whether action could be taken against the change of land user and construction made long back, having regard to Sections 30 and 32 of the Act of 1982; neither details nor specific instances are given in the writ petitions to take action; the authorities could not have taken action without giving opportunity of hearing to the parties likely to be affected, the principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing in such mattes should be read into the provisions; the new master plan has come into force from 1.9.1998; the case ought to be examined in the light of the new master plan also. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant-JDA submitted that the J.D.A. has power to permit conversion; it is not correct to say that an application for change of land use cannot be considered unless the master plan is modified. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents (Writ Petitioners) urged that none of the appellants has come forward to say that he has not contravened the provisions of law; the learned counsel submitted that there could not have been direction to demolish the buildings straightway, but he submitted that the change of user of land could be stopped immediately. 20. The learned counsel for the respondents (Writ Petitioners) urged that none of the appellants has come forward to say that he has not contravened the provisions of law; the learned counsel submitted that there could not have been direction to demolish the buildings straightway, but he submitted that the change of user of land could be stopped immediately. He further submitted that a Cell may be created in the J.D.A. to stop future violation and the time frame may be fixed to take action in regard to violation in the change of user of land and construction made in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1982. He suggested that a Committee may be appointed to monitor the actions of the J.D.A. in this regard. 21. The learned counsel for the J.D.A. drew our attention to Sections 17, 31, 32, 33 and 72 of the Act of 1982 and submitted that action for demolition can be taken under section 17(5) of the Act of 1982 in respect of construction made without permission. He also submitted that the entire exercise may be left to the J.D.A. and a Monitoring Committee may be appointed consisting of the Commissioner, JDA, Director Town Planning, Secretary, J.D.A., Senior Town Planner, District Magistrate and Collector. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent Housing Board referred to Sections 2(j), 2(m), 26 and 28 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Act and the undertaking given by each allottee. 23. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan submitted that the State is ready to comply and cooperate to carry out the instructions and ready to give assistance to J.D.A. whenever required. He submitted that the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development may be a Member of the Monitoring Committee, while pointing out to Section 94 of the Act of 1982. 24. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that many of the appellants have permission for construction; most areas are handed over to the Municipal Corporation, hence, a representation of Municipal Corporation may be there in the Monitoring Committee. 25. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 26. 24. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that many of the appellants have permission for construction; most areas are handed over to the Municipal Corporation, hence, a representation of Municipal Corporation may be there in the Monitoring Committee. 25. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 26. As is clear from the very preamble of the Act of 1982, the aim and object of it is to provide for the establishment of an Authority for the purposes of planning, coordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of the Jaipur Region and of executing plans, projects and schemes for such development and to provide for matters connected therewith. It may not be necessary for us to refer to various Sections of the Act of 1982 relating to establishment and constitution of the Authority & Boards, Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans, control of development and use of land included in plans, projects and schemes etc. However, having regard to the controversy raised and in the view we are taking, we consider it appropriate to extract few relevant provisions of the Act of 1982. 27. Section 16 of the Act of 1982 declares that the main object of the Authority shall be to secure integrated development of the Jaipur Region and for that purpose, the functions of the Authority are enumerated. 28. Section 17 of the Act of 1982 to the extent it is relevant for the immediate purpose reads: "Section 17. No other authority or person to undertake certain development without permission of the Authority. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, except with the previous permission of the Authority, no authority or person shall undertake any development within the Jaipur Region of the type as the Authority may from time to time specify, by notification published in the official Gazettee, and which is likely to adversely affect the overall development of the Jaipur Region. (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) Any authority or person aggrieved by the decision of the Authority under sub-section (3), may, within thirty days, appeal against such decision to the State Government whose decision shall be final ............... (2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) Any authority or person aggrieved by the decision of the Authority under sub-section (3), may, within thirty days, appeal against such decision to the State Government whose decision shall be final ............... (5) In case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under this section, the Authority shall have power to pull down, demolish or remove any development undertaken contrary to such decision and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the person or authority concerned." 29. Under section 20 of the Act of 1982, the Authority has got power to execute any plan. 30. Chapter-V of the Act of 1982 deals with the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans. "Section 21 of the Act of 1982 reads : "Section 21. Civic Survey and preparation of Master Development Plan.-(1) The Authority with a view to securing planned integrated development and use of land, shall carry out a civic survey of land and prepare a Master Development Plan for Jaipur Region. (2) xxxxxxxxxx (i) xxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxocxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxxx (iv) xxxxxxxxxxxxx (v) xxxxxxxxx ............... (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 31. Section 22 of the Act of 1982 speaks of preparation of Zonal Development Plan. 32. Section 25 of the Act of 1982 enables the authorities to effect modification in the Master Plan. 33. Chapter-VI of the Act of 1982 provides for control of development and use of land included in Plans. 34. Section 32 of the Act of 1982 states that where any development of land has been carried out, as indicated in sub-section (1) of Section 31, the Authority may, subject to the provisions of Section 32, within three years of such development, serve on the owner a notice requiring him, within such period being not exceeding one month, as may be specified therein and to take such steps specified in the notice. The said Section also provides an opportunity to an aggrieved person to apply for permission under section 18 for retention on the land of any building or works or for the continuance of any use of the land and pending the final determination or withdrawal of the application, the mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of such use. Sub-section (6) of the same Section provides for prosecution of the owner for not complying with the notice relating to discontinuance of any use of land or non-compliance with the notice. It also provides for demolition or alteration of building and to recover cost of the same, where there was non-compliance of requirement of demolition and alteration. 35. The Authority has power under sections 33 to 35 to stop unauthorised development, removal or discontinuance of unauthorised temporary development summarily and removal of authorised development or use. 36. As per Section 92 of the Act of 1982, the provisions of the Act of 1982 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force. 37. The Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 stood dissolved by virtue of Section 101 of the Act of 1982. Section 101(f) and (i) of the Act of 1982 reads: ' "Section 101. Dissolution of the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur and savings- (1) xxxxxxxxxx (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 in, so far 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 it is not otherwise dealt with under this Act. (i) anything done or any action taken including any appointment, delegation, order, scheme, rule, bye-laws, regulation or form made or notification issued or permission granted under the said Act so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue in force and be deemed to have been done or taken under the provisions of this Act unless and until it is superseded by anything done or any action taken under the said provisions." 38. Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 reads:"Section 73-B Power of State Government to allow change in use of land. Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 reads:"Section 73-B Power of State Government to allow change in use of land. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 72 or 73-A, the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government may, in public interest allow any person to use the land for purposes other than for which it was originally allotted or sold to him by any local authority or State Government or for purposes restricted in a scheme framed under section 29 on payment of such conversion charges as may be prescribed : Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas. (2) The conversion charges so realised shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State or the fund of the Trust as may be determined by the State Government. (3) " xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. This Section conferred power on the State Government to allow change in the use of land. The learned Single Judge in the common order under appeals while narrating the facts has stated that "in most of the localities of Jaipur City, user of residential buildings have been changed from residential purpose to the commercial purpose in the form of shops, cinemas, hotels, marriage lawns/homes, fast food centres etc. The change of user is causing much hardship and inconvenience to the residents of the locality. It has been alleged that the respondents, particularly Jaipur Development Authority and Rajasthan Housing Board have failed to discharge their statutory duties in preventing the change of user of residential buildings to that of commercial establishmets". Again, he has stated that "from the facts stated above, the allegation of the petitioner has been established beyond doubt that the use of residential colonies is being changed to the commercial purposes like; hotels, restaurants, fast food centres, wine shops, small scale industries and other similar activities". He has set forth the following two questions for determination on page 9 of the common order under appeals: "(i) Whether commercial activities are going on in the various residential localities of Jaipur City ? and if so; (ii) Whether in such localities the user has been changed from residential to that of commercial purposes under the proper approval/permission of the concerned authorities under the provisions of the relevant act, rules and regulations ?" 39. and if so; (ii) Whether in such localities the user has been changed from residential to that of commercial purposes under the proper approval/permission of the concerned authorities under the provisions of the relevant act, rules and regulations ?" 39. In the order of the learned Single Judge, reference is made to the hotels, restaurants and commercial establishmens run in the residential colonies, based on the applications given by the persons in response to the public notice issued by the Court. 40. The learned Single Judge concluded that the allegations made in the writ petitions were established on two grounds; (i) that none of the applicants who have filed objections in response to the public notice has stated that he has not contravened in relation to use of land or activities being carried on; and (ii) that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, there is no specific denial as to violation by the persons in regard to use of land or construction of buildings or in relation to carrying on their commercial activities in the residential areas. 41. The learned Single Judge did not accept the argument of the learned counsel for the J.D.A. that under section 73-B of the Act of 1959, the J.D.A. had power to grant permission for change of use of land, having regard to the provisions contained in the Act of 1982. The learned Single Judge held that under the Act of 1982, the J.D.A. has no power to grant permission for change of use of land. He has also held that any permission or sanction given by the J.D.A. in regard to the change of We of land from residential purpose to commercial purpose by invoking provisions of Section 73B of the Act of 1959, is illegal and without jurisdiction. 42. Section 65(c) of the Act of 1982 gives power to the Authority to levy conversion charges for conversion of use of land from residential purpose to commercial or any other purpose. 43. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the respondents have failed to produce any notification issued under section 65 of the Act of 1982 and in the absence of such notification, the J.D.A. cannot allow the conversion of the use of land from residential to commercial purpose. 44. 43. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the respondents have failed to produce any notification issued under section 65 of the Act of 1982 and in the absence of such notification, the J.D.A. cannot allow the conversion of the use of land from residential to commercial purpose. 44. In view of the conclusion arrived at by him, the learned Single Judge has given the following directions: "In the result, petition succeeds and is allowed. The Jaipur Development Authority is directed to stop the user of following commercial establishments forthwith which are essentially residential houses but the commercial activities are going on contrary to the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Act 1982: (1) In Plot No.E-38, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Mr. Lehrilal Jasoria is running a SHOWROOM. (2) In PLOT No. E-805, Shrawanlal Sharma and in PLOT No. 20, Girraj Prasad Agarwal, Awadhpuri, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur are running MOTOR GARAGE. (3) In FLATS No. 43/26/1, 43/26/4,43/29/4, 43/32/4, 43/35/1, 43/36/1 and 43/36/4, Chanakya Lane, Swaran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur; the commercial activities are going on by the owners of the flats. (4) In FLAT No. 1003, Baba Harishchandra Marg, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Mr. Lokchandra Sharma in the name and style of M/s. RAM KISHORE LOKCHANDRA is running the business of preparing SILVER UTENSILS and there is a big WORKSHOP for preparing the UTENSILS. (5) in PLOT No. A-28, Nahari Ka Naka (East), Vidhyadhar Nagar Road, Shastri Nagar, Smt. SUNITA WIFE OF SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR PARWAL (MAHESHWARI), the illegal constructions are being made for the purpose of commercial activities. (6) The following residential buildings are being used for commercial purposes: C-17 Printer items C-23 Electric items IN JAMUNA C-27 Facility Area NAGAR C-29, 30-6 Shops (SODALA) C-44 Kirana & General Store JAIPUR. C-50 Fridge Shop (7) In PLOT No. A-84, Sanjay Colony, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur, Smt. Urmila Choudhary wife of Ashok Choudhary is running a SMALL SCALE INDUSTRY of manufacturing CARTOONS from the card-board. (8) In PLOT No.82, Awadhpuri, Near Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Smt. Santosh Sharma wife of B.L. Sharma is involved in the business of DAIRY. (9) In PLOT No.87, Awadhpuri, Near Mahesh Nagar, one Mr. Nemi Chand is running a SCHOOL. (10) In PLOT No. 46/A, Sen Colony, Power House Road, Jaipur, Mr. Vijendra Singh Rathore is constructing a HOTEL. (11) In PLOT No. C-233A, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Mr. (9) In PLOT No.87, Awadhpuri, Near Mahesh Nagar, one Mr. Nemi Chand is running a SCHOOL. (10) In PLOT No. 46/A, Sen Colony, Power House Road, Jaipur, Mr. Vijendra Singh Rathore is constructing a HOTEL. (11) In PLOT No. C-233A, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Mr. Ravindra Rana is involved in the business of manufacturing SYNTHETIC PILLOW. (12) The RESIDENTIAL PLOT No. 1803, Phatehpurion Ka Darwaja, Chaura Rasta Jaipur has been converted into a COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. (13) In the adjacent PLOT No. A-23, Krishna Nagar-11, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, in a plot a SCHOOL is running. (14) In PLOT No. E-3, Gokhale Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur SHUBHAM FAST FOOD CENTRE is running. (15) In PLOT No. 10/75, Swam Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur a WORKSHOP is running. (16) In PLOT No. 4819, Mohalla Ziauddin Sahib Ki Gali, Ghoda Nikas Road, Mohalla Teliyaan, Choukdi Ramchandra Ji, Jaipur-2, one ABDUL SATTAR is involved in the preparation of UTENSILS and its POLISHING, CARPENTRY AND GEMS. (17) In PLOT No. 68, 69 and 81, III, Vijay Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur, there are SHOPS in front of the residential house. (18) IN PLOT No. B-27 and B-28 thee is a BARFKHANA and the premises of which are also used for the purposes of marriage and these plots are known as "ASHIRWAAD LAWN". (19) In PLOT No. B-30-B, Govind Marg, Saket Colony one Mr. P.S. Kapur in a three storied building is running a PRINTING PRESS and other commercial activities. (20) On MADHYAM MARC of Mansarovar : AAKRITI TRADERS, KATHURIYAS AND KHANDELWAL ELECTRONICS are being run in residential plots. (21) In SECTOR 9 of Mansarovar, the firms namely : MANSI DRY CLEANERS, BANSAL BUILDINGS MATERIAL SUPPLIERS, GUDDU RESTAURANT AND MANSAROVAR CLINIC are being run in residential plots. (21) In PLOT No. D-21, Moti Doongri Circle an Ice-Cream Parlour named as "GIRNAR ICE-CREAM PARLOUR" is running. (22) In PLOT No. D/43-A, Subhash Marg, Bhagat Singh Marg, C-Scheme a COFEE HOME is running. (23) In C-SCHEME, JAIPUR one "MILKY WAY" Ice-Cream Parlour is running. (24) In Shyam Nagar, DWARKA RESTAURANT, POORTI DEPARTMENTAL STORE, LAZEEZ HOTEL are running. The respondents are also directed to initiate action against such establishments as provided under Section 17(5) of the Act 1982 which empowers the Jaipur Development Authority to pull down, demolish or remove such establishments and the JDA would also be entitled to recover the cost of such demolition or removal from the owners of above establishments. The respondents are also directed to initiate action against such establishments as provided under Section 17(5) of the Act 1982 which empowers the Jaipur Development Authority to pull down, demolish or remove such establishments and the JDA would also be entitled to recover the cost of such demolition or removal from the owners of above establishments. This order shall also apply in the case of Udaikant Mishra, Director Abhishek Estate Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. The JDA is also directed to stop the user of such other residential buildings which are being used for industrial purposes and also take action against them under section 17(5) of the Act 1982 forthwith. It is further ordered that in view of the fact that the general notice has been published in newspapers to enable the aggrieved persons against cancellation and stopping of user, no personal notice is required to be given in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari Vesus Union of India & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 444 . It would also be open to the JDA to launch prosecution against owners of such establishments as provided under Section 33 of the JDA Act 1982. The JDA is restrained from granting any permission for change of use of a residential premises into a commercial premises without making modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur Region and all such permissions granted after the commencement of Act No. 25 of the Act 1982 shall be deemed to be null and void. The Municipal Corporation and Rajasthan Housing Board are also restrained from passing any such order in this behalf as the only competent Authority to grant such permission is the Jaipur Development Authority alone that too, after modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur Region. The State of Rajasthan through its Chief Secretary is directed to ensure strict compliance of the order passed by this Court. The Home Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is also directed to issue instructions to the Director General of Police, Jaipur for providing adequate and necessary police force if required for carrying out the directions of the Court to the Jaipur Development Authority. The Home Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is also directed to issue instructions to the Director General of Police, Jaipur for providing adequate and necessary police force if required for carrying out the directions of the Court to the Jaipur Development Authority. The Secretary Housing Board is also directed to ensure that the directions issued by this Court are followed by the JDA without any delay and in case, the Commissioner JDA or other Authorities competent to carry out the directions fail to discharge their duties, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against them also." 45. As can be seen from the above directions, some of them are general in nature by which the` respondents are directed to initiate action against such establishments as provided under section 17(5) of the Act of 1982, to pull down, demolish or remove such establishments. The learned Single Judge has also taken the view that since a general notice had been published in the newspapers to enable the aggrieved persons against cancellation and stopping of user, no personal notice was required to be given and that it is open to the J.D.A. to launch prosecution against the owners of such establishments as provided under section 33 of the Act of 1982. The JDA is also restrained from granting any permission for change of use of residential premises into commercial premises without making modification in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur Region. The learned Single Judge has further declared that all such permissions granted after commencement of the Act of 1982 shall be deemed to be null and void. Even the Municipal Corporation and Housing Board are also restrained from passing any such order in this behalf. The Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is directed to ensure strict compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Director General of Police is also directed to provide adequate and necessary police force if rquired for carrying out the directions of the Court. 46. In our view, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, these directions given by the learned Single Judge are very wide and they will certainly pose difficulties, if they are to be implemented. Some of the directions amount to restraining the Authorities from exercising the powers conferred on them under the statutory provisions. 46. In our view, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, these directions given by the learned Single Judge are very wide and they will certainly pose difficulties, if they are to be implemented. Some of the directions amount to restraining the Authorities from exercising the powers conferred on them under the statutory provisions. Such directions could not have been issued to demolish or pull down buildings, having regard to the provisions contained in the Act of 1982, in particular Section 17, that too without issuing notice to the persons concerned specifying the violations and their failing to comply with. In the actions which result in serious civil consequences affecting the rights of the parties, that too relating immovable properties, the principles of natural justice are also required to be followed. 47. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that a new Master Plan has come into force from 1.9.1998 and alongwith the land use zoning code and zonal plans are also under preparation. In the light of Sections 25 to 28 of the Act of 1982, the matters will have to be examined and also see the effect and consequences of the new master plan on the alleged contraventions and disputes as of now. 48. As per Section 17(1) of the Act of 1982, no authority or person shall undertake any development within the Jaipur Region of the type as the Authority may from time to time specify, by notification published in the official gazette, and which is likely to adversely affect the overall development of the Jaipur Region. It is to be seen as to what are the types of developments that are specified under section 17(1); whether the persons or authorities desiring to undetake developments had applied to the Authority for permission to undertake such developments; whether the Authority has taken any decision under section 17(3) either granting or refusing permission. Under section 17(4), aggrieved person is given right of appeal to the State Government. Under section 17(5), in case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under the said Section, the Authority shall have the power to pull down, demolish or remove any development undertaken contrary to such decision. 49. Section 31 of the Act of 1982 provides for penalty for unauthorised development or for use otherwise than in conformity with the Plan. 50. 49. Section 31 of the Act of 1982 provides for penalty for unauthorised development or for use otherwise than in conformity with the Plan. 50. Section 32 of the Act of 1982 has conferred power on the Authority for removal of unauthorised development. The said Section provides for giving direction to restore the land to its original condition existing before the said development took place, in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 31 and to secure compliance with the conditions or with he permission as modified in regard to cases coming under clause (b) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 31. It also provides for issuing notice to the occupier requiring discontinuance of any use of land. Section 32(2) provides that such notice to be issued under section 32(1) may require; (a) the demolition or alteration of any building or works; (b) the carrying out on land of any building or other operations; or (c) the discontinuance of any use of land. Section 32(3) gives an opportunity to the person aggrieved by such notice to apply for permission under section 18 for retention on the land of any building or works or for the continuance of any use of the land, to which the notice relates and pending the final determination or withdrawal of the application, the mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of such use. Section 32(6) also provides for prosecution of owner for not complying with the notice. 51. Sections 33 to 35 of the Act of 1982 deal with the power of the Authority to stop unauthorised development, removal or discontinuance of unauthorised temporary development summarily and removal of authorised development or use. 52. Section 101 of the Act of 1982 saves besides other things, all plans, schemes for the development or improvement of any area declared as the urban area of Jaipur and prepared under the Act of 1959; anything done or any action taken including scheme, rule, bye-laws, regulation or form made or modification issued or permission granted under the Act of 1959 are also saved. 53. Section 65 of the Act of 1982 provides for levying certain charges and Section 65(c) speaks of conversion charges for conversion of use of land from residential purpose to commercial or any other purpose. 54. 53. Section 65 of the Act of 1982 provides for levying certain charges and Section 65(c) speaks of conversion charges for conversion of use of land from residential purpose to commercial or any other purpose. 54. Section 73-B of the Act of 1959 gives power to allow change in use of land. If any such permission is granted to person or authority under this Section, that has also to be kept in view, in view of the saving provisions made in Section 101 of the Act of 1982. 55. In the light of these provisions and other provisions contained in the Act of 1982, the new master plan and zonal regulations the matters in controversy are required to be examined. It is not appropriate to straightway issue directions of the nature issued by the learned Single Judge without examining the requirements of law, without verification of factual and actual position. Nobody can say or debate that there should be no orderly development of the Jaipur region; planned, coordinated and orderly development of Jaipur region is the paramount purpose of the Act of 1982; the authorities or persons cannot defeat the very object and purpose of the said Act; all are bound by the statutory provisions contained in the Act; the JDA and other authorities are bound to take action to comply with the mandate contained in the Act of 1982 and to advance the object and purpose of the Act, but this should be done consistent with the provisions made in the Act of 1982. 56. The learned Single Judge has held that the JDA has no power for granting permission for conversion of the use of land from residential purpose to commercial purpose. Having regard to Section-65, other provisions of the Act of 1982, Section 73B of the Act of 1959 and Section 101 of 1982 Act, it is also a matter which requires examination whether the JDA has got power to grant permission for conversion of the use of land from residential purpose to commercial purpsoe. 57. Assuming that certain persons have not disputed that they have changed the use of land from residential purpose to commercial purpose, such persons or authorities are to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1982, and in particular to Sections 17, 18 and 32 of the said Act. 58. 57. Assuming that certain persons have not disputed that they have changed the use of land from residential purpose to commercial purpose, such persons or authorities are to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act of 1982, and in particular to Sections 17, 18 and 32 of the said Act. 58. The averments made in the writ petition are general in nature that in most of the localities of Jaipur City residential buildings were being used for commercial purposes in the form of shops, cinemas, hotels, marriage lawns/homes, fast food centres etc. causing hardhsip and inconvenience to the residents of the localities; the relief sought for are also not specific but general without specifying the particular properties. The learned Single Judge has also taken the view that in most of the localities of Jaipur City residential buildings were being used for commercial purposes; taking this view, the learned Single Judge on page 9 of the order under appeals formulated two questions of general nature which are already extracted above. Again on page 25 of the order, the learned Single Judge has noticed that only crucial factual and legal questions which require adjudication, are as under : (1) Whether the Jaipur Development Authority has got power to allow conversion of residential colony into a commercial colony under Section 73-B of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 after coming into force of JDA Act, 1982 ? and, (2) If a user of residential building changes the use of residential to that of commercial use, what action can be taken against such establishment ? 59. As can be seen from the ultimate directions given by the learned Single Judge, they are also general and very wide in their application. In our view, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, such directions could not have been given without examining the specific violations by the authorities or persons and that too without looking to the requirements of law as stated above already. 60. These are not the cases in which it can be said that the disputed questions of fact did not arise for consideration. 60. These are not the cases in which it can be said that the disputed questions of fact did not arise for consideration. Hence, in the first place, the directions ought to have been given to the competent authorities to examine the fatual position and record findings on the diputed questions of fact instead of straightway issuing directions to pull down or demolish buildings/constructions or to stop the use of land. 61. Even if the actions are to be taken against the persons or authorities for violation of provisions of the Act either in the matter of land use or construction of buildings or carrying on commercial activities, action can be taken consistent with and in accordance with the requirements of the various provisions of the Act of 1982, as stated above, while referring to the various provisions of the Act. We may add that even the learned counsel for the respondents agreed that straightway no directions could be issued to demolish or pull down the buildings. 62. Having regard to the development in Jaipur region and coming into force of the new Master plan, it is necessary to examine the effect and consequence of the Master Plan in relation to the violations complained against the persons and the authorities in the matter of land use or commercial activities or construction of buildings. 63. The learned Single Judge has declared that all permissions granted for change of use of residential premises into commercial premises without making modifications in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur region shall be deemed to be null and void. We are of the view that permissions granted could neither be declared null and void nor cancelled without giving opportunity to the persons/authorities who are likely to be affected by such order. 64. As is evident from the provisions of the Act referred to above, in particular Section 32, even opportunity is provided to the persons or authorities to apply for retention of land use or buildings under section 18 of the Act; in case, permission is not granted, the further action has to be taken against such authorities or pesons in relation to the land use or buildings. The provisions of Section 73B of the Act of 1959, Sections 65 and 101 of the Act of 1982 in regard to permission for conversion and land use also required to be examined, but, this aspect also has missed attention of the learned Single Judge. Thus, in view of what is stated above, we find it difficult to sustain the common order of the learned Single Judge, the validity of which is questioned in these appeals. 65. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that there is a need for taking action against the persons or authorities, who made violations in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas against the provisions of the Act of 1982. All the counsel for the parties submitted that there is a need for constitution of Monitoring Committee and fixing time frame for taking appropriate actions against such violations or contraventions in the interest of orderly development of Jaipur region, which occupies a prominent place in the country, having its historical background which is popularly known as "Pink City". We find reason and force in the submissions. The learned counsel for the parties suggested that such Committee may consist of Commissioner, JDA, Senior Town Planner, Collector, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and Municipal Commissioner. 66. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we dispose of these appeals in the following terms : (1) The common order of the learned Single Judge under appeals is set aside. (2) The Jaipur Development Authority shall issue notice to 24 parties contained in the directions given by the learned Single Judge, for taking action in the light of the observations made above. (3) A Monitoring Committee is constituted consisting of Commissioner, JDA, Director, Town Planning, Secretary, JDA, Senior Town Planner, Collector, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development and Municipal Commissioner. The said Committee shall get survey of Jaipur City relating to contravention in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas saint the provisions of the Act of 1982, within a period of four months. The said Committee shall get survey of Jaipur City relating to contravention in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas saint the provisions of the Act of 1982, within a period of four months. (4) On the basis of the survey report, the Jaipur Development Authority shall take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1982 within a period of six months from the date of availability of survey report and shall submit the report to the Monitoring Committee once in two months about the progress made. (5) The JDA is further directed to take necessary steps to prevent further violations either in the matter of land use or construction of buildings or carrying on the commercial activities in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1982. If need be, a Special Cell may be created or this specific work may be entrusted to specified officer if such arrangement is not already existing in the JDA. (6) It is open to the public also to point out any violations in regard to change of land use, construction or carrying on commercial activities in the residential areas against the provisions of the Act of 1982, to the Monitoring Committee within a period of four months. This may be made known by the JDA to general public by publication in one Hindi daily newspaper and one English daily newspaper having wide circulation in Jaipur region. (7) If there is any difficulty in carrying out these directions, it is open to the parties to approach this Court for necessary clarification or directions. (8) No costs. Spl. Appeal Disposed Of with directions. *******