JUDGMENT 1. - These two petitions are between the same parties, raising the same questions. However, in respect of two different parcels of lands. 2. For the purposes of considering the controversy raised in these petitions, the facts are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 60/84. 3. The petitioner Is a private Ltd. company. It purchased two parcels of sale ad each consisting of several plots from erstwhile ruler of Jodhpur vide registered sale deed dated 19.7.1972. One set of plots were situated in old RAC ground which is bounded on East and South by roads, on the West of it, Circuit House is situated and on North the Farrash Khana. On the East beyond the road is situated Rai Ka Bag. The other set of the plots is situated of opposite K N. Hall for Women. On the West of which is main road and across it (.N. Hall, on North side is road and on South, the Circuit House and plot of Sadan Kanwar Medical Trust. The sub-division of the said land in separate plots was sanctioned somewhere in 1971. The charges for sub-division in respect of both the plots amounting to Rs. 1,25,0001- and 1,11,000/- respectively were deposited on 31.12.1971 with the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur. 4. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as the Act, 1976) and its extension to the city of Jodhpur, the petitioner submitted a return dated 4.10.1976 before the Competent Authority under the Act of 1996 the land in question formed part of the said declaration. 5. The petitioner also moved an application under Section 21 of the Act, 1976 that they be allowed to retain the above land for the purposes mentioned in Section 21. Vide letter dated 26.5.1979, the Competent Authority called upon the petitioner to submit compliance in respect of the proposal submitted by them in the aforesaid declaration and the plans were submitted to the Senior Town Planner. Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur as desired vide letter dated 26.6.1980. 6. The Senior Town Planner, Jodhpur vide letter dated 26.3.1980 required the petitioner to submit revised plans which directions were also complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Senior Town Planner vide letter dated 16.7.1981 required the petitioner to submit revised plans which directions were also complied with by the petitioner. 6. The Senior Town Planner, Jodhpur vide letter dated 26.3.1980 required the petitioner to submit revised plans which directions were also complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Senior Town Planner vide letter dated 16.7.1981 required the petitioner to submit revised plans which directions were also complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter the Senior Town Planner vide letter dated 16.7.1981 required the petitioner to submit estimates with entire information as required by him in his earlier letter dated 26.3.1980. A meeting was held in the chambers of the Vice Chairman of the petitioner society on 23.12.1982 between him and the Senior Town Planner and the Competent Authority in connection with the scheme submitted by the petitioner under S.21 of the Act, 1976. A note of such meeting has also been placed on record as Annex. 7. The petitioner in pursuance of said meeting submitted the revised plans and detailed estimate of the plan vide its letter dated 3.5.1983. 7. Thereafter considering the application after calling upon the petitioner to furnish requisite details and information and requiring the petitioner to revise the scheme in terms of the suggestions made by the Senior Town Planner and on submission of such revised plans, the Senior Town Planner sanctioned the scheme of the petitioner vide order dated 10.5.1983. The sanction and complete information were communicated to the competent authority vide letter dated 21.5,1983 by the Senior Town Planner. 8. Thereafter, the competent authority required the petitioner to carry out the construction in accordance with the said sanctioned time bound scheme immediately and intimate his office. 9. On receipt of the sanction, the petitioner entered into a contract with a Builder Society for implementation of the scheme. The petitioner also informed the Urban improvement Trust about the sanctioning of the scheme in their favour under Section 21 of the Act of 1976. In the said communication, it was stated by the petitioner that they are taking necessary action as directed by the letter of the competent Authority in furtherance of the scheme sanctioned and submitted the plans approved by the Senior Town Planner, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The said communication is annexed with the writ petition as Annex. 10. 10. Vide communication dated 26.8.1983, the petitioner was required to submit the progress report of constructions every three month. After levelling the ground the petitioner started constructions on the dwelling Units as per the sanctioned scheme. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The said communication is annexed with the writ petition as Annex. 10. 10. Vide communication dated 26.8.1983, the petitioner was required to submit the progress report of constructions every three month. After levelling the ground the petitioner started constructions on the dwelling Units as per the sanctioned scheme. Thereafter, the Senior Town Planner, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur along with the competent authority inspected the site on 8.11.1983 and approved the working and assured the petitioner that they would be sending the recently issued 'guidelines of the Government for allotment of dwelling units under the Act, 1976. 11. In December, 1983 group of persons alleging themselves to be the representatives of the respondents - UIT Jodhpur came on the site and threatened to dismantle the constructions forcibly unless the work was stopped. On 14.12.1983, the petitioners informed the Senior Town Planner to intervene and see that interference in the implementation of scheme to sanctioned by him does not take place. On 14.12.1983, Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur directed the petitioner to stop construction which was received by the petitioner on 15.12_83 which was duly replied. It was pointed out to the Trust that petitioners are implementing a scheme specifically sanctioned under Section 21 of the Act, 1976 which operates on its own and once sanction has been granted by the Competent Authority under the Act, 1976 by approving the scheme for implementation as required under Section 21 of the Act, no further sanction was required for construction. 12. By letter dated 15.12.1983 the Competent Authority under the Act, 1976 required the U.I.T. to remove ail constraints on the construction made by the petitioner in implementation of the sanctioned scheme and the Trust was requested to withdraw its notice dated 14.12.1983. 13. In spite of the aforesaid, the Trust insisted with its interference and issued notice dated 20.12.1983 inter alia stating that in case of failure to obtain the permission for sub division and construction from the Trust action would taken under Section 91(Ka) to (Ga) of the Urban Improvement Act. 14. The Additional Collector, jodhpur also issued a notice dated 21.12.1983 calling upon the petitioners to appear before him on 23.12.1983. 14. The Additional Collector, jodhpur also issued a notice dated 21.12.1983 calling upon the petitioners to appear before him on 23.12.1983. The Trust was again requested to withdraw the notice by drawing attention to the provisions under Section 21, and 42 of the Act of 1976, and drawing attention that all previous proceedings were duly informed to the Trust about which no objection was ever taken with a request to withdraw the notice and restrain from interfering with the ongoing construction on the land in question. The Collector was also apprised of the same. 15. While the matter was going on before the Collector, and submissions were being made, the officers of U.I.T. were trying to impress that the U1T Act will have an overriding effect over the Act, 1976, therefore, notwithstanding, scheme having been sanctioned by the authority under the Act, 1976, the same cannot be implemented unless approved by the UIT The Collector, instead of himself resolving the dispute, informed the parties that he would make a reference to the State Government. However, the petitioners did not receive any such information about any such reference having been made by the Collector. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, these two writ petitions were filed challenging the notices issued by the UIT dated 14.12.1983, 20.12.1983 and 24.12.1983 inter alia primarily on the ground that in view of Section 21 read with Section 42 of the Act, 1976, once a scheme has been approved and sanctioned under the said Act, it is required to be implemented as per such sanction. No further sanction is required for the purpose of raising construction in accordance with the sanctioned scheme in implementation of the provisions of the Act, 1976. 17. The petition was admitted on 10.1.1984 and by way of ad interim order directed to maintain the status quo in the first instance. After hearing the arguments on stay application for number of days, finally on 15.3.1984, the Court passed the following order "No further action or proceedings be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of Annex. dated 14.12.1983. Annex. 19 dated 20.12.1983 and Annex,21 dated 24.12.1983. Any construction made by the petitioner hereinafter will be subject to any direction or order that may be made by the court in the decision of the writ petition." 18. dated 14.12.1983. Annex. 19 dated 20.12.1983 and Annex,21 dated 24.12.1983. Any construction made by the petitioner hereinafter will be subject to any direction or order that may be made by the court in the decision of the writ petition." 18. An application was moved thereafter by the respondents U.I.T for modifying the interim order passed on 15.3.1984 which was rejected and the learned counsel for U.I.T also did not press his prayer for listing the writ petition for early hearing. 19. Two petitions have been filed in respect of two different sets of plots which have been referred to above. 20. The factual position which is now not in dispute, is that constructions have already been made ran the plots in question since aforesaid order was passed on 15.3.1984 and possession of which have also been delivered to different persons and the constructed houses are in possession of original allottee or subsequent transferees, with or without further modification in the original constructions by the transferees. 21. It may further be noticed that in respect of existing constructions, certain disputes had arisen that they are not in accordance with sanctioned scheme and notices had been issued to the petitioners during pendency of these writ petitions for removing those constructions, and the petitioners did move an application for composition of said breaches by requesting the U.I.T. to determine the composition amount in this connection. 22. Since 1999, it is being assured on behalf of UIT that the dispute shall be resolved by determining the compounding charges in respect of the variations, if any, made by the petitioners in construction of the houses. A statement was made on 7.12.1999 by learned counsel appearing for the respondents along with Law Officer of UIT that the departmental officers have been consulted and assured the Court to sort out the problem. They wanted eight weeks time so that appropriate measurement of houses can be made and to ascertain what can be done further to them. Since then the matter has been adjourned a number of times. On 13,11.2002, the counsel for respondents changed guards. When the matter came up for hearing on 27.1.2003, again the question cropped up about the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondents on 7.12.1999. The Court took the notice of the fact by perusing Annex. 31 letter dated 23.12.1999 written by Secretary UIT and Annex. On 13,11.2002, the counsel for respondents changed guards. When the matter came up for hearing on 27.1.2003, again the question cropped up about the assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondents on 7.12.1999. The Court took the notice of the fact by perusing Annex. 31 letter dated 23.12.1999 written by Secretary UIT and Annex. 33 letter dated 10.2.2000 written by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 that Assistant Engineer has taken measurement and report was also submitted by him to the respondent No. 1, Secretary, UIT. A request was made again by the petitioner through the letter that compounding charges etc. may be taken. However, no further steps have been taken in this regard and the time was granted to the learned counsel for UIT to report on the subject. However, it appears that up-til now, notwithstanding having taken number of opportunities, the matter stands as it is. 23. About the controversy raised in the matter whether it was essential for the petitioners to have obtained a sanction for raising construction in accordance with the scheme approved by the authorities under the Act, 1976 in terms of Section 21 it is to be noticed that the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 was enacted after receiving the assent of the President on 24th day of July, 1959. Thereafter, Act, 1976 was enacted by the Parliament on 17.2.1976. Section 42 of the Act, 1976 provides that provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law for the time being in force or any custom, usage or agreement or decree s or order of a Court, tribunal or other authority. 24. Therefore, in case of any repugnancy, the Act, 1976 by the Parliament giving overriding effect to any other law will prevail over the Act, 1959 about which there cannot be any doubt. 25. 24. Therefore, in case of any repugnancy, the Act, 1976 by the Parliament giving overriding effect to any other law will prevail over the Act, 1959 about which there cannot be any doubt. 25. In the aforesaid premises, if we notice Section 21 of the Act, 1976 which is also non-obstante clause, giving it overriding effect over provisions of Act, 1959 provides that where a person holds any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and such person declares within such time, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed before the competent authority that such land is to be utilised for the construction of dwelling units (each such dwelling unit having a plans area not exceeding eighty square meters) for the accommodation, of the weaker sections of he society, in accordance with any scheme approved by such authority as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. 26. Before me, there is no dispute about the fact that such scheme was approved by the Competent Authority notified by the State Government in that behalf for the purposes of Section 21 in tandem with Two Planning Deptt. of the State. The petitioners were under an obligation to implement the scheme as per the terms and conditions prescribed while approving the Scheme under the Act which also include the time limit within which such buildings are to be constructed. Apparently, far as sanction of construction to implement the scheme is concerned it flows from Sec.21 and the scheme is to be sanctioned by the authority notified by the State Government in that behalf. Therefore. so far as question of merely obtaining further and formal sanction for raising construction to implement the scheme under any other local laws becomes redundant. 27. It is not the case of the respondents that the scheme approved by the competent authority under Sec.21 of the Act was in violation of any scheme under Urban Improvement Trust when it was approved, or was not in accordance with the Master Plan approved for the town when it was being implemented. It has been noticed above that scheme under Section 21 was approved in consultation with Senior Town Planner. Ordinarily, this ensures that any scheme in contravention of any existing master plan or boundary regulation under laws of State shall not be approved. It has been noticed above that scheme under Section 21 was approved in consultation with Senior Town Planner. Ordinarily, this ensures that any scheme in contravention of any existing master plan or boundary regulation under laws of State shall not be approved. Nor it is the case of the respondents that when the scheme was sought to be implemented or before it was completed, the approved scheme was in violation of any subsequent change in town plan scheme. Therefore, requiring the sanction for commencement of construction as per the approved scheme under Section 21 of the Act, 1976 which permission is otherwise inherent in approval of the scheme, without any objection as to the scheme itself being contrary to the scheme of town planning approved under the Town Planning Act or Urban Improvement Act, in my opinion, would be to put the authorities under the UIT Act above the sanctioning authority under the Act, 1976 which otherwise has an overriding effect in view of Section 42 of the Act. 28. It is true that the approval of the Scheme in any particular area has so to be in accordance with the scheme approved for the land development or requirement under a master plan which may be approved under a different law is not incompatible with the provisions of the Act, 1976. Any scheme to give effect to Section 21, must necessarily conform to the basic idea of a planned development of the city as Der the law governing the same. However, the same cannot extend to observance of mere formality of obtaining permission for commencing construction before implementing the scheme, as such sanction already exists with the approval of the scheme under Section 21 which itself mandates that once the scheme is approved, the holder of the land is allowed to continue to hold land only in case he constructs the building in accordance with the scheme within the stipulated time. The time is stipulated as a condition of approval of the scheme. 29. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors., 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 290 : (2001) 5 SCC 101 relied on by learned counsel for the UIT. The time is stipulated as a condition of approval of the scheme. 29. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi P. Gaikwad v. Savjibhai Haribhai Patel & Ors., 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 290 : (2001) 5 SCC 101 relied on by learned counsel for the UIT. It was a case in which schemes under Section 21 of the Act of 1976 were filed before the competent authority for construction of dwelling units for accommodation of weaker section of society. The holder of land entered into an agreement with other land developer, hereinafter described as plaintiff. under which the plaintiff was to execute the scheme for dwelling units for accommodation of weaker sections of society as envisaged by Section 21(1) of the ULC Act over the land held by the owner (defendant) in the city of Vadodra. In pursuance of that agreement, schemes were filed for approval before the competent authority for construction of the dwelling units for the accommodation of weaker sections of society. First of such scheme was filed on 15,3.1977. After submission of the scheme, holder of land as executed an affidavit giving declaration that all the terms and conditions of earlier agreement executed between them were executed voluntarily by him and is not liable to be cancelled. Thereafter by notice dated 23.2.1980, the defendant holder sent a notice to the plaintiff-builder cancelling the agreement and power of attorney stating that along with affidavit cum declaration were illegal and inoperative. 30. This led to filing of civil suit by the plaintiff- builder for specific performance of the agreement for permitting him to implement the scheme and restraining the defendants-holders from cancelling the agreement and power of attorney holder. A decree for specific performance was passed by the learned trial Court and was affirmed by the High Court with modification that the decree for specific performance will be subject to condition of final declaration under Section 21 of the U.L.C. Act being issued with regard to land in question by the specified authority. After the judgment on 20.6.1998; the competent authority approved the 5th Scheme under Section 21(1) of the Act of 1976. 31. This order, sanctioning the scheme by the competent authority under the Act, 1976 was challenged by the legal representatives of the erstwhile ruler of Vadodara. 32. After the judgment on 20.6.1998; the competent authority approved the 5th Scheme under Section 21(1) of the Act of 1976. 31. This order, sanctioning the scheme by the competent authority under the Act, 1976 was challenged by the legal representatives of the erstwhile ruler of Vadodara. 32. During the pendency of the applications for approving the schemes and before the question of implementing the scheme could arise, the Master Plan under Gujarat Town Planning Act, 1978 was modified according to which the land in question was designated as open space. Residential building could not be constructed over it. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the question arose whether agreement to raise residential building over the land designated as open space under the revised master plan could be so specifically enforced, when the scheme for such construction had been approved under the Act of 1976 before finalisation of master plan. It is in the aforesaid background, the Court said: "The object of the ULC Act is not to sanction or permit development in the States contrary to their statutory town planning laws. Development and town planning are ongoing processes. They go on changing from time to time depending upon local needs. The definition of "master plan" contemplates the plan prepared under any law "for the time being in force" or "in pursuance of an order made by the State Government for the development of such area or part thereof and providing for the stages by which such development shall be carried out." The Court went on to say:- "For claiming the benefit of Section 21, the construction, of the dwelling units for the accommodation of the weaker sections of the society on the land has to be done if permissible as per the relevant master plan when the Scheme is considered by the authorities for sanction. If the land use requires the land to be used is for some other purpose, it cannot be said that to grant benefit under Section 21, the land should he permitted to be used for construction of residential units. It was not intended and could never have been intended that Section 21 would take away the State's power of town planning or on coming into force of the ULC Act, the master plan would freeze." 33. On this premise, the Court held that the agreement could not be specifically enforced. 34. It was not intended and could never have been intended that Section 21 would take away the State's power of town planning or on coming into force of the ULC Act, the master plan would freeze." 33. On this premise, the Court held that the agreement could not be specifically enforced. 34. We are not faced here with a case in which the U.I.T. is seeking to stop the ongoing constructions on the ground that the approved scheme runs counter to master plan or at any later stage before. Constructions were completed had become contrary to subsequently modified or new master plan. The only grievance is that without seeking permission of UIT to start construction, the construction could not have been commenced. 35. This contention does not appear to be well founded. Once the U.L.C. Act provided for raising of the construction during the stipulated time in accordance with the approved scheme, the sanction for construction flows from such sanction which can be infructuated only if it is found that the construction approved has either been approved in derogation of the existing Master Plan or before it is implemented, it has been rendered opposed to the Master Plan that may have been approved later on. The contention that such sanction will only conform to the Master Plan existed at the time of sanctioning of scheme has not been accepted by the Supreme Court. 36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the notices for restraining the petitioners from raising the constructions in accordance with the approved scheme under Section 21 of the Act, 1976 by the authorities under the UIT Act, 1959 without anything more to suggest that the approved scheme was contrary to the Master Plan prevailing on the date, cannot be sustained. The UIT Act does not entitle the respondents to stop construction in implementation of the scheme approved under Section 21 of the Act, 1976, only for want of formal sanction for commencing construction on such scheme, such consent being inherent into the approval of such scheme. 37. Moreover, it is apparent that since filing of the writ petition, the situation has materially altered. The scheme has been implemented, houses have been constructed and handed over to the respective parties. It is not so ki own whether they had changed further hands. Meanwhile, the Act, 1976 s also been repealed in 1999. 37. Moreover, it is apparent that since filing of the writ petition, the situation has materially altered. The scheme has been implemented, houses have been constructed and handed over to the respective parties. It is not so ki own whether they had changed further hands. Meanwhile, the Act, 1976 s also been repealed in 1999. In view of repealment, the proceedings under the Act, 1976 cannot now be taken for a gum law against the petitioners in respect of the land in question. 38. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that a question of obtaining formal sanction by UIT before raising construction even if it is considered necessary, loses its significance. Moreover, the respondents themselves have shown their willingness to consider the application for compounding the constructions which have allegedly been made in violation of scheme or subsequent constructions that may have been made contrary to laws governing building restrictions. 39. Though the question of compounding in respect of constructions already raised is not the subject matter of this writ petition, but it cannot be doubted that if any construction has been raised by the petitioners contrary to the sanctioned scheme and the ULC Act is not being in force, the UIT would be competent to consider the application for compounding or take action in respect of unauthorised construction raised on the land in question. I do not express any opinion on the rival stand taken by the parties in respect of conditions of composition or otherwise deal with such construction which are contrary to Scheme approved under Section 21 or alteration made thereafter which may be in contravention of building laws. The application for compounding such construction by the petitioners may be considered in accordance with law. 40. As a result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notices are quashed. 41. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petitions Allowed - Impugned Notices Quashed. *******