JUDGMENT - H.L. GOKHALE, J.:---Heard Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General in support of Misc. Civil Application Nos. 406 and 407 of 2000 issued by the Town Country Planning Board as well as Shri Coelho Pareira, learned Senior Advocate in support of Misc. Civil Application No. 381/2000. Shri Sonak, learned Advocate appearing in Writ Petition No. 71/2000 is also heard. The applications moved by the Board seek clarification with respect to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10th July, 2000 as well as on 26th June, 2000 in Writ Petition Nos. 71/2000 and 168/2000. That is also the prayer in M.C.A. No. 381/2000. 2. Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General submits that though sentiments expressed by the Court in these orders are understandable, the order of 10th July, 2000 when it deals with lands other than tenancies is a little wider one. The submission of Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General is that there is no specific ban with respect to agricultural lands where there are no tenancies. With respect to the agricultural lands where there is tenancy, there is a specific ban. There is no such clear specific ban with respect to conversions from other agricultural lands. The conversion of those lands for other purposes has been permitted under the Land Revenue Code and hence as non-tenancy lands are concerned, the order requires to be modified. Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General has drawn our attention to the different tables which are annexed to these applications, pointing out the user of the land for different purposes and in his submission, the change from agricultural to non-agricultural as disclosed in Exhibit 'D' is only to the tune of 25.69 sq.kms. during 1990-2000. 3. That apart, the request of Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General is that the Town and Country Planning Board is an authority which is consisting of variety of experts and there is an arrangement to see to it that all interests are adequately represented. He, therefore, submits that as far as non tenancies are concerned, it is best to leave it to the Town and Country Planning Board to take necessary decision with respect to the conversions, if necessary. 4. The application made by Shri Coelho Pareira, learned Senior Advocate is a species of this category. The Applicant herein is a purchaser. The landowner tried to use the land for poultry. 4. The application made by Shri Coelho Pareira, learned Senior Advocate is a species of this category. The Applicant herein is a purchaser. The landowner tried to use the land for poultry. He could not succeed and in that is how he is of the view that better price will be available if it is sold and used for auto garage which is what the petitioner is seeking to do. He has moved the authority concerned for this change but he is informed that the change cannot be permitted in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Shri Coelho Pareira, learned Senior Advocate has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (Giani Devender Singh Sant Seboy Sikh v. Union of India and another)1, reported in 1995(1) S.C.C. 391 wherein the Apex Court has criticised issuing general and sweeping directions. Shri Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Advocate, therefore, emphasises that in the absence of clear specific ban, this Court ought not to create one. 5. Shri Sonak, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the main petition, accepts that his petition was concerning the agricultural tenancies only and not the non-tenancy lands and he leaves it to the Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Having heard the Advocates for the parties on all sides, we are of the view that as far as the order dated 10th July, 2000 is concerned, it should be modified. Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General draws our attention that, as far as tenanted lands are concerned, in the order passed on 26th June, 2000, the Court included a clarification in Clause 6 that the order will not cover Government projects in respect of the lands which have been acquired and other instances like village roads where authorities are carrying on the work. He submitted that similar exceptions be made for non tenancies. We, accordingly, give the following clarification :- (a) We direct that similar clarification will be read in the order of 10th July, 2000 regarding non-tenanted agricultural lands. (b) It is further clarified that as far as the Planning Board is concerned, the Board will be at liberty to proceed with town planning process and drafting of the regional plan. We, accordingly, give the following clarification :- (a) We direct that similar clarification will be read in the order of 10th July, 2000 regarding non-tenanted agricultural lands. (b) It is further clarified that as far as the Planning Board is concerned, the Board will be at liberty to proceed with town planning process and drafting of the regional plan. In that process, if it is required to grant permission to any agricultural lands (other than tenancies) to be converted into non-agricultural lands, it will be open to the Board after considering the submissions by the Applicant as well as the requirements of the area concerned. Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General makes a further statement that whenever such conversions are permitted, a report will be filed every six months so that the report could be scrutinised by the Court. This suggestion of learned Advocate General is accepted considering the fact that the Second Petition No. 168/2000 was essentially a PIL Writ Petition and, therefore, the Court ought to exercise necessary superintendence. (c) The restrictions imposed on Town and Country Planning Board in para 5 of the order dated 26th June, 2000 will remain confined only to the agricultural lands where there are tenants. 7. These clarifications meet the requirements in all the three applications. In view of these modifications/clarifications, these applications stand disposed of. -----