JUDGMENT :- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) 1. These three Writ Appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 21.04.2008 passed in Writ Petition Nos.18757, 14062 and 22052 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed all the three writ petitions. 2. More precisely, Writ Appeal No.491 of 2008 is directed against the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.18757 of 2007, Writ Appeal No.493 of 2008 is directed against the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.22052 of 2007, and Writ Appeal No.494 of 2008 is directed against the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.14062 of 2007. 3. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these three writ appeals are:- P.Hanumantha Rao and Smt. P.Seetha Mahalaxmi are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14062 of 2007. They are the owners and possessors of Ac.9.39 gutnas comprising Survey Nos.43, 44, 58 and 96 of Narsingi village. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the 1894 Act”) was issued on 4.4.2006 proposing acquisition of lands for formation of Outer Ring Road (`ORR’) junction. Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published on 6.4.2006. An award came to be passed on 27.5.2006. They filed writ petition on 02.7.2007 assailing initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the 1894 Act. The petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No.15887 of 2006 seeking direction to the respondents not to acquire lands owned by them or in the alternative allot equal extents of lands belonging to the Government available just nearby in Survey No.205, situated at Narsingi Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The said writ petition came to be disposed on 26.9.2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “In view of the submission and after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Acquisition and Mr.P.Rajagopala Rao, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 13.07.2006 for grant of alternative land in lieu of the acquired land and dispose of the same in accordance with the powers available under Section 31(3) of the Act after evolving a transparent and fair package of guidelines/policy which would be equitably applied to all persons similarly situated in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There shall be no order as to costs”. 4. There shall be no order as to costs”. 4. The Project Director, ORR and Special Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad Urban Development Authority considered the representation of the petitioners and rejected their request for allotment of equal extent of land in Survey No.205 of Narsingi village or any other Government land in lieu of acquired land, vide proceedings No.D/ORR/510/2006, dated 26.02.2007. It is useful to refer the relevant portion of the proceedings, which reads as hereunder:- “The Government after considering the representations of the farmers who are loosing lands for formation of Outer Ring Road have evolved a transparent policy and package of compensation for the affected families of Outer Ring Road Project and issued implementation instructions in G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 18-12-2006 which relates to the Phase-II villages of land acquisition. Whereas the lands of petitioners in Narsingi village on 27-5-2006. The HUDA has taken a decision in its 194th meeting held on 29-12-2006 to extend the compensation package benefits to the phase-1 village which are similar to Phase-II villages. Accordingly implementation instructions were issued by the undersigned vide Proc.No.C/1812/2006 dated 08-01-2007. The representation of the petitioner dated 01-12-2006 has been considered in the light of the compensation package approved by HUDA on 29-12-2006. The details of compensation package applicable to all land loosers of Outer Ring Road Project are as follows: 1. There shall be an enhancement of 100% over the awarded amount passed by the L.A.O. The L.A.O Unit-VII has passed award in respect of petitioners land on 27-05-2006 fixing the compensation of Rs.9,92,880/- per acre including all benefits viz., 30% solatium and admissible 12% Additional Market Value. Under the compensation package the petitioners are eligible for enhanced compensation @ Rs.19.85 Lakhs per acre. 2. As per compensation package land loosers are eligible for allotment of 400 Sq. yards of land for each acre lost subject to a maximum of 1200 Sq. Yards if the land lost by them exceeds 80% of the total holding of the family in the village. 3. The petitioner are eligible for the above package subject to fulfillment of conditions and filing consent for the package approved by the Govt./HUDA. yards of land for each acre lost subject to a maximum of 1200 Sq. Yards if the land lost by them exceeds 80% of the total holding of the family in the village. 3. The petitioner are eligible for the above package subject to fulfillment of conditions and filing consent for the package approved by the Govt./HUDA. In view of the above, the request of the petitioners for allotment of equivalent extent of land in Sy.No.205 or any other government land in lieu of acquired land is not permissible as per the package announced by the HUDA/Government and they are eligible only for the compensation package approved by the Govt/HUDA as mentioned above which is applicable to all the land loosers of Outer Ring Road Project. Accordingly representation dated:13-07-2006 and representation dated: 01-12-2006 have been disposed off in the above terms”. 5. Thereafter they filed Writ Petition No.14062 of 2007 on 2.7.2007. 6. Barla Rami Reddy is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18757 of 2007 filed on 3.9.2007. He is the owner and possessor of Ac.6-20 guntas in Survey No.205/2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued on 4.4.2006 proposing acquisition of lands for public purpose to wit for formation of Outer Ring Road junction at Narsingi. Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published on 06.04.2006. He submitted representation on 26.4.2006 to shift the ORR. Award came to be passed on 27.5.2006. 7. K.Damodar Prasad, K.Vamshidar Prasad, K.L.Rupender and Smt. Prema Ranjit are the petitioners in Writ Petition No.22052 of 2007 filed on 11.10.2007. K.Damodar Prasad is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.181, 182, 183 and 184 admeasuring Acs.0.09, 0.19, 0.14 and 0.11 guntas respectively. K.Vamshidar Prasad is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.181, 182, 183 and 184 admeasuring Acs.0.09, 0.19, 0.15 and 0.11 guntas respectively. K.L.Rupender is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.181, 182, 183 and 184 admeasuring Ac.0.08, 0.20, 0.14 and 0.12 respectively. Smt.Prema Ranjit is the owner and possessor of the lands in Sy.Nos.181, 182, 183 and 184 admeasuring Ac.0.08 ½, 0.20, 0.15 and 2.34 guntas respectively. 8. Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act proposing acquisition of lands was issued on 13.12.2005. The petitioners filed objections to the acquisition of their lands. An enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act came to be conducted. 8. Notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act proposing acquisition of lands was issued on 13.12.2005. The petitioners filed objections to the acquisition of their lands. An enquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the 1894 Act came to be conducted. Thereafter, an award came to be passed on 01.10.2007. Notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act came to be issued to the petitioners on 3.10.2007. 9. By the time notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act proposing acquisition of lands owned by the petitioners in all the writ petitions, the Government approved the report of the ORR alignment committee and issued G.O.Ms.No.8, Infrastructure & Investment (IID-2) Department, dated 12.12.2005. 10. The grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners, as set out in their affidavit filed in the respective writ petitions, is that:- (a) Unless the Master Plan comes into operation, no development can be carried out under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, “the 1975 Act”). The 1994 Master Plan did not set apart any land for use of a ring road. Laying down a ring road is a major change and a major modification. The HUDA must go through the procedure and prepare another Master Plan but cannot modify the Master Plan of 1994. Unless the Master Plan is approved and comes into operation, no development activity can be undertaken. The modifications proposed to be made in 1994 Master Plan completely alters the original Master Plan and it amounts to bringing forth a new Master Plan. The procedure contemplated under the 1975 Act for preparing the Master Plan is therefore, required to be followed. Initiation of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of Outer Ring Road without converting the agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose as per the provisions of A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion of Agricultural lands to Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 cannot be sustained. b) The HUDA failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the 1975 Act for change of the Master Plan and they did not even consider the objections of the public before initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the 1894 Act. b) The HUDA failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the 1975 Act for change of the Master Plan and they did not even consider the objections of the public before initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the 1894 Act. The respondents shifted the alignment of the ring road as well as the junction from Poppalguda to Narsingi on the express highway by disturbing the straight alignment made earlier with several twists and turns only to target the lands belonging to the petitioners. The new alignment proposed by the respondents passes through the water body in Survey Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300 of Poppalguda village. The respondents shifted the alignment without any scientific survey and sufficient reasons. The changed alignment based on the report of the Committee suffers from basic infirmities such as improper connectivity to Phase-1 Outer Ring Road at Poppalguda; the longitudinal gradient will be almost 1 in 50 for a stretch of 2.5 K.Ms. which is not advisable for a design speed of 120 KMPH; and the volume of rock cutting results in increased cost of execution of the project and involvement of excess land in acquisition. The changed alignment is nearer to the lakes, which seriously affects the lakes and environment. 11. The respondents filed counter affidavit traversing the averments made in the affidavit filed in the respective writ petitions. 12. The case of the respondents, in brief, is :- a) The HUDA engaged M/s.MECON as consultants in the year 2001 for feasible study of the ORR Project. The ORR was conceived as 109 Km four-line connectivity around the city. The land acquisition for Phase-I of about 33 Kms from Miyapur to Gachibowli segment was also initiated based on the consultancy report. The proposed road was passing through the well-developed areas in Hi-tech city resulting in the proposal for issuance of notification for acquisition of large-scale properties and disturbing the habitations. Therefore, the Government of Andhra Pradesh re-examined the project features in July, 2004. Basing on the recommendations of senior officials in the Government and the HUDA, the concept was revised and the project was decided to be taken as a “Green Field Project” through open areas avoiding major settlements and habitations. Accordingly, a revised plan was finalized for taking up construction of ORR around the twin cities. Basing on the recommendations of senior officials in the Government and the HUDA, the concept was revised and the project was decided to be taken as a “Green Field Project” through open areas avoiding major settlements and habitations. Accordingly, a revised plan was finalized for taking up construction of ORR around the twin cities. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.442, dated 19-10-2004 mandating the HUDA to take up the project with its own funds. In April 2005, the ORR alignment was finalized by the HUDA as 159 KM road around twin cities. The alignment plans were approved in four sectors - Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern- by the Vice Chairman of the HUDA. The Special Collector, ORR, notified the required lands under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act for almost all the sectors between 13th April, 2005 and 21st April, 2005. The notified alignment was inspected at Poppalguda by the technical wing of the ORR project and the said inspection revealed that the alignment was passing through hillocks involving huge rock cutting and will be uneconomical. At the time of notification in April, 2005, the junction of Phase-I and Phase-II alignments of the ORR was not contemplated and detailed design of the interchange, its dimensions and the area required for it was not available as the Detailed Project Report was not prepared by them. Subsequently, the consultants-M/s.Aarvee Associates were appointed for the Detailed Project Report preparation for Phase-1 of ORR during the last week of April, 2005. The consultants proposed a trumpet interchange at T-junction point, where Phase II joins Phase I of the ORR. When the trumpet interchange was incorporated at Poppalaguda junction, the same was affecting some structures, including a school building. This necessitated an alternative alignment for the interchange of Phase-I and Phase-II of the ORR. The Committee on the alignment of the ORR comprising the Principal Secretary, Infrastructure & Investment Department, Managing Director, INCAP; Vice-Chairman, HUDA and the Project Director, ORR noticed the above mentioned set backs; and the Principal Secretary, Infrastructure & Investment Department constituted a departmental committee for the purpose of examining various alternatives in the Western Sector and to propose the best possible alignment keeping financial, environmental and technical considerations in view. The Alignment Committee examined various objections and gave its recommendations on the final alignment, which came to be approved by the HUDA and the State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 12.12.2005. The Alignment Committee examined various objections and gave its recommendations on the final alignment, which came to be approved by the HUDA and the State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 12.12.2005. The ORR is a part of the existing Master Plan, which was notified in the year 1980 with 1:50000 scale in which 1 cm represented a distance of half a k.M while the project implementation plans are drawn to very minute scales like 1:500 in which 1 cm., represents 5 meters. b) The process of modification of Master Plan and land acquisition are fundamentally distinct and different from each other and in the event of a certain utility project like a road becoming an urgent necessity in public interest, such as providing connectivity to an International Airport as in the present case, nothing in the 1975 Act prevents taking up of a project of this nature and since the ORR is already a part of the plans in force; deviations on technical grounds at project stage are common. The Master Plan revision is not at all linked with the ORR project and it is a sheer coincidence that implementation of the ORR and overall revision of the Master Plan of the HUDA area are happening at the same time. The current modification to Master Plan was initiated as early as in 2003 and is not related to the ORR project. Incorporating the finalized alignment of the ORR project is as per the Master Plan in force and not dependent on the current Master Plan modification exercise. The legality of the land acquisition depends on the specific provisions of the 1894 Act and since the ORR project is as per the plan in force, proceedings under the 1975 Act have no bearing on the said land acquisition proceedings. c) The Pollution Control Board, Andhra Pradesh, after being satisfied with the present alignment, gave consent for establishment, vide order dated 4.10.2006. The Survey Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300 are not covered by any water bodies. Survey Nos.291 and 298 are patta lands and Survey Nos.299 and 300 relate to evacuee property lands (dry lands). 13. The appellants/writ petitioners filed their reply affidavits in the respective writ petitions. The Survey Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300 are not covered by any water bodies. Survey Nos.291 and 298 are patta lands and Survey Nos.299 and 300 relate to evacuee property lands (dry lands). 13. The appellants/writ petitioners filed their reply affidavits in the respective writ petitions. They reiterated their contention in the respective reply affidavits that unless the Master Plan comes into operation, no development can be carried out, and the modifications envisaged in Section 12(1) of the 1975 Act could be only minor modifications and changes. The new alignment contravenes G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 8.3.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 3.3.2006, which prohibit construction on the water bodies. 14. The learned Single Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, formulated the following points for consideration:- (1) Whether proceedings for acquisition of land for development cannot be initiated and land acquired without the approval of amendment to the Master Plan ? (2) Whether power of the State Government under Section 12(2) of the 1975 Act is limited to modification of Master Plan involving minor but not extensive changes? (3) Whether delegation of power of State Government under Section 12(2) of the 1975 Act in favour of the Vice Chairman of the Authority is invalid and whether such delegation amounts to enlargement of the Authority’s power under Section 12(1) of the 1975 Act? and (4) Whether the proposed alignment affects existing water bodies and failed to fulfill the criteria prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board?” 15. The learned Single Judge answered all the points against the writ petitioners and in favour of the respondents, and thereby, dismissed all the three writ petitions, by the common judgment dated 21.04.2008. Hence, these three Writ Appeals. 16. Heard Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.491 and 494 of 2008 and Sri B.V.Subbaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.493 of 2008 and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 17. Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned senior counsel contends that unless the Master Plan as modified is finalized, land acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated. His further submission is that modification of Master Plan can be only of a minor nature and cannot make extensive changes of the existing Master Plan. Any modification of the Master Plan should be through the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. His further submission is that modification of Master Plan can be only of a minor nature and cannot make extensive changes of the existing Master Plan. Any modification of the Master Plan should be through the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. The Government cannot delegate its powers vested under Section 12(2) of the 1975 Act to the Vice Chairman of the Authority. The present plan envisaged in respect of 2nd ORR in the western sector passes through water bodies and does not fulfill the criteria prescribed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, dated 4.10.2006. In elaborating his arguments, learned Senior Counsel took us to the provisions of the 1975 Act very extensively. It is profitable to refer the provisions of the 1975 Act on which much emphasis has been laid by the learned Senior Counsel and they are Sections 2(e), 3, 6, 8, 12 and Section 13 of the 1975 Act. 18. Section 2(e) defines `development’ and Section 2(f) defines `development area’. `Development’ as defined in Section 2(e) reads as hereunder:- “2(e): `development’ with its grammatical various means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development plan referred to in this Act and the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes re-development. Provided that for the purposes of this Act, the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed to involve development of the land that is to say— (i) the carrying out of any temporary works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building; (ii) the carrying out by a local authority of any temporary works required for the maintenance or improvement of a road, or works carried out on land within the boundaries of the road; (iii) the carrying out by a local authority or statutory undertaking of any temporary works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other appratus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose; (iv) the use of any building or other land within the curtilage purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such; and (v) the use of any land for the purpose of agriculture, gardening or forestry (including afforestation) and the use of any purpose specified in this clause of any building occupied together with the land so used;” 19. `Development area’ as defined in Section 2(f) reads as hereunder:- development area’ means any urban area or group of urban areas declared to be a development area under sub-section (1) of Section 13; 20. Section 3 deals with constitution of Urban Development Authority. `Development area’ as defined in Section 2(f) reads as hereunder:- development area’ means any urban area or group of urban areas declared to be a development area under sub-section (1) of Section 13; 20. Section 3 deals with constitution of Urban Development Authority. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 deals with composition of Urban Development Authority, which reads as hereunder:- “(3)The authority shall consist of the following members, namely:- (a) a Chairman, to be appointed by the Government; (b) a Vice-Chairman, to be appointed by the Government, who shall be a whole-time chief executive officer of the Authority; (c) three members from among the Members of the State Legislature representing the development area, to be nominated by the Government; (d) two Councillors of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or of the municipality, as the case may be, comprised within the development area, to be nominated by the Government; (e) one officer, representing the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or the Municipal Administration Department of the Government, to be nominated by the Government; (f) one officer of the Town Planning Department of the Government, to be nominated by the Government; (g) one officer of the Finance Department of the Government, to be nominated by the Government; (h) Five other members, to be nominated by the Government.” 21. Section 6 deals with preparation of Master Plan and Zonal development plans. Subsection (2) of Section 6 explains the Master Plan, which reads as hereunder:- “6(2): The Master Plan shall— (a) define the various zones into which the development area may be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used (either after carrying out development thereon or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out; and (b) serve as a basic pattern of frame-work within which the zonal development plans of the various zones may be prepared” 22. Section 7 deals with preparation of Zonal development plans, which reads as hereunder: “7. Zonal development plans:- Simultaneously with the preparation of Master Plan or as soon as may be thereafter the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of zonal development plan for each of the zones into which the development area may be divided. Section 7 deals with preparation of Zonal development plans, which reads as hereunder: “7. Zonal development plans:- Simultaneously with the preparation of Master Plan or as soon as may be thereafter the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of zonal development plan for each of the zones into which the development area may be divided. (2) A zonal development plan may,- (a) contain a site plan and land use plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land uses proposed in the zones for such purposes as roads, housing, schools, recreation, hospitals, industry, business, markets, public works and utilities, public buildings, public and private spaces and other categories of public and private uses; (b) specify the standards of population density and building density; (c) show every area in the zone which may, in the opinion of the Authority, be required or declared for development or re-development; and (d) in particular, contain provisions regarding all or any of the following matters, namely— (i) the division of any site into plots for the erection of buildings; (ii) the allotment or reservation of lands for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes; (iii) the development of any area, into a township or colony and the restrictions and conditions subject to which such development may be undertaken or carried out; (iv) the erection of buildings of any site and the restrictions and conditions in regard to the open spaces to be maintained in or around buildings and height and character of buildings; (v) the alignment of buildings on any site; (vi) the architectural features of the elevation or frontage of any building to be erected on any site; (vii) the number of residential buildings which may be created on any plot or site; (viii) the amenities to be provided in relation to any site or buildings on such site whether before or after erection of buildings and the person or authority by whom or at whose expense such amenities are to be provided; (ix) the prohibitions or restrictions regarding erection of shops, workshops, warehouses of factories or buildings of a specified architectural feature or building designed for particular purposes in the locality; (x) the maintenance of walls, fences, hedges or any other structural or architectural construction and the height at which they shall be maintained; (xi) the restrictions regarding the use of any sites for the purposes other than erection of buildings; and (xii) any other matter which is necessary for the proper development of the zone or any other area thereof according to plan and for preventing buildings being erected haphazardly in such zone or area.” 23. Section 8 deals with procedure to be followed in preparation and approval of plans. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 reads as hereunder:- “Before finally submitting any plan to the Government for approval, the Authority shall prepare a plan in draft and publish it by making a copy thereof available for inspection publishing a notice in such form and manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the draft plan before such date as may be specified in the notice”. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 1975 Act reads as hereunder:- “After considering all objections, suggestions and representations that may have been received by the Authority, the Authority shall finally prepare the plan and submit it to the Government for their approval”. 24. Section 12 deals with modification to the plan, which reads as hereunder:- “12 Modifications to plan:- (1) The Authority may make such modifications to the plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density. (2) The Government may suo motu or on a reference from the Authority make any modifications to the plan, whether such modifications are of the nature specified in subsection (1) or otherwise. (3) Before making any modifications to the plan, the Authority or, as the case may be, the Government shall publish a notice in such form and manner as may be prescribed inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modifications before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority or the Government. (4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published in such manner as the Authority or the Government, as the case may be, may specify and the modifications shall come into operation either on the date of the publication or on such other date as the Authority or the Government may fix. (5) When the Authority makes any modifications to the plan under sub-section (1), it shall report to the Government the full particulars of such modifications within thirty days of the date on which such modifications come into operation. (5) When the Authority makes any modifications to the plan under sub-section (1), it shall report to the Government the full particulars of such modifications within thirty days of the date on which such modifications come into operation. (6) If any question arises whether the modifications proposed to be made by the Authority are modifications which effect important alterations in the character of the plan or whether they relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of population density, it shall be referred to the Government whose decision thereon shall be final. (7) Any reference in any other Chapter, except this Chapter, to the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan shall be construed as a reference to the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan as modified under the provisions of this section.” 25. Chapter IV of the 1975 Act, which contains five sections, viz., Sections 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 deals with `Development of Lands’. Section 13 envisages Declaration of development areas and development of land in those and other areas, which reads as hereunder:- “13 Declaration of development areas and development of land in those and other areas:- (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, where Government consider it necessary to do so for purposes of proper development of any urban area or group of urban areas in this State they may, by notification, declare such urban area or group of urban areas to be a development area for the purposes of this Act. (2) The Government may, by notification and in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf- (a) exclude from a development area any area comprised therein; or (b) include in a development area any other area. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not undertake or carry out any development of land in any area which is not a development area. (4) After the commencement of this Act, no development of land within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government, unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (4) After the commencement of this Act, no development of land within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government, unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (5) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area within the development area, no development shall be undertaken or carried out in that area unless such development is also in accordance with such plans. (6) Notwithstanding anything in any other law or the provisions contained in sub- sections (4) and (5), development of any land undertaken in accordance with any law by any person or body including any department of the Government or any local authority before the commencement of this Act, may be completed without compliance with the requirements of those sub-sections: Provided that such development of land shall be completed within one year from the date of commencement of this Act; unless the Authority for good and sufficient reason, extends the said period of one year for such further period as it deems fit. (7) After the commencement of this Act, no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government in such area adjoining to or in the vicinity of the development area, as may be notified by the Government unless approval of or sanction for such development has been obtained in writing from the local authority concerned, in accordance with the provisions of relevant law relating thereto, including the law relating to town planning for the time being in force and the rules and regulations made thereunder: Provided that the local authority concerned may, in consultation with the Authority, frame or suitably amend its regulations in their application to such area adjoining to or in the vicinity of the development area. (8) (a) Where any part of the area adjoining to or in the vicinity of the development area, as notified under sub-section (7), is in the process of rapid development or is likely to develop in the near future, the local authority concerned shall, either on the direction of the Government or on the advice of the Authority, prepare in consultation with the Authority, Town Planning Scheme under the law relating to Town Planning, for the time being in force, and publish the schemes as required under that law and submit them to the Government for sanction. (b) Any development in the area covered by such Town Planning schemes shall be in accordance with the provisions of the schemes as sanctioned by the Government. (c) Where in regard to the matters specified in sub-section (7) and of this sub-section there is a difference of opinion between the local authority concerned and the Authority, the matter shall be referred to the Government, whose decision thereon shall be final. (9) In this section, and in Sections 14, 16 and 41 the expression Department of the Government' means any department, organisation or public undertaking of the State Government or of the Central Government. 26. Under sub-section (1) of Section 14 the 1975 Act, every person or body including a Department of the Government desiring to obtain the permission referred to in Section 13 shall make an application in writing to the Authority in such form and containing such particulars in respect of the development to which the application relates as may be determined by regulations. 27. Sri Challa Seetharamaiah, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions:- (1) Munshi Singh and others. v. Union of India (AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1150) (2) Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab ((1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases 284) (3) Aflatoon v. Lt.Governor of Delhi ((1975)4 Supreme Court Cases 285) (4) P.T.Lila Ram v. The Union of India ((1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 547) (5) State of T.N v. A.Mohammed Yousef ((1991)4 Supreme Court Cases 224) (6) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority v. Gangaram ((1994)2 Supreme Court Cases 489) (7) State of T.N v. L.Krishnan ((1996)1 Supreme Court Cases 250) (8) Pune Municipal Corporation v. Promoters and Builders Association ((2004)10 Supreme Court Cases 796) (9) Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors. ( 2006(3) Supreme 49 ) (10) State of Punjab v. Sanjeet Singh Grewal ((2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 292) (11) Luxmi Tea Company Limited v. Pradip Kumar Sarkar (1989 Supp(2) Supreme Court Cases 656) (12) A.P.Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V.Nayudu ((1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 718) (13) A.P.Pollution Control Board II v. Prof.M.V.Nayudu ((2001)2 Supreme Court Cases 62) (14) Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. M/s.Pure Industrial Cock (2007(8) SCALE 110) 28. The change of alignment of Outer Ring Road and the validity of initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land under the provisions of the 1894 Act came to be challenged in a series of writ petitions. One such writ petition is W.P.No.22809 of 2006 filed by M/s.Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The writ petitioners therein questioned the change of alignment of Outer Ring Road, more particularly, western sector alignment. The issues that fell for consideration in W.P.No.22809 of 2006 and batch are: “1) Whether or not the petitioners were given effective opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 5-A (2) of the 1894 Act and whether the consideration of objections filed by them is vitiated due to non-application of mind? 2) Whether the impugned acquisition is vitiated due to mala fides and arbitrariness? 3) Whether respondent No.3 was competent to issue notification under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act? 4) Whether the acquisition of the land in question is ultra vires the provisions of the 2006 Act?” All the issues have been answered against the writ petitioners therein. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order passed in the above batch of writ petitions, which reads as hereunder: “On a careful reading of the Gazette Notification and letter dated 23.12.2006 sent by Executive Engineer, I & CAD Department, we are constrained to remark that while the Gazette Notification relates to Survey No.291 of Narsingi Village, letter of the Executive Engineer makes a mention of Survey No.291 of Poppalguda and Narsingi Villages simultaneously. The falsity of the contents of letter No.DB/HD/2006-2007/1570 is evinced from the fact that the Executive Engineer makes a mention of the office records and zonal development plan of Poppalguda Village issued by HUDA, site inspection and panchanama conducted by him, but the so-called panchanama etc. have not been produced before the Court. The falsity of the contents of letter No.DB/HD/2006-2007/1570 is evinced from the fact that the Executive Engineer makes a mention of the office records and zonal development plan of Poppalguda Village issued by HUDA, site inspection and panchanama conducted by him, but the so-called panchanama etc. have not been produced before the Court. As against this, the letter of the Executive Engineer, North Tanks Division, Secunderabad makes a detailed mention of the joint inspection of the four survey numbers by Special Deputy Commissioner, L.A. Unit, ORR Project, HUDA, Assistant Project Officer, ORR Project, Revenue Inspection, ORR Project, Deputy Executive Engineer, HUDA, Deputy Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of North Tanks Division and S.I. Sheet No.56K/7/NW. It is, thus, evident that even though, on papers, survey numbers enumerated above may have been recorded as “kuntas”, on ground, there are no water bodies in those survey numbers. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the acquisition of the petitioners’ land cannot be nullified on the ground that the execution of ORR Project may result in encroachment and destruction of water bodies.” The contention advanced by the writ petitioners therein that the Special Deputy Collector, L.A, Unit-VII, Outer Ring Road Project, was not entitled to act as delegate of the State Government has also been rejected. In a nutshell the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred writ petitions refused to quash the change of alignment of Outer Ring Road and consequential proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 29. The writ petitioners therein carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.52 of 2008, 74 of 2008 and 215 of 2008. The Civil Appeals filed by them ended in dismissal on 5.4.2010. The appellants in the said Civil Appeals contended before the Supreme Court that the western sector of the ORR Project affected some of the water bodies in the area. The said contention came to be negatived by the Supreme Court. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the above-referred Civil Appeals, which reads as hereunder:- “30. The said contention came to be negatived by the Supreme Court. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the above-referred Civil Appeals, which reads as hereunder:- “30. We have taken pains to set out the fact situation in some detail since a decision in this matter depends on the fact situation leading to the change of alignment of the Western Sector of the Outer Ring Road Project in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. From the site plans of the area submitted by the parties, it is clear that both the two alignments touch and disturb existing water bodies, which was the main ground for the change of alignment in the first place. From the reports submitted by the various local authorities, it is, however, clear that in order to proceed according to the first alignment, the respondents would have to cut through a great deal of rock, which is not so as far as the second alignment is concerned. It is no doubt true that in terms of the environmental policies of the State Government, the Western Sector of the Project has been shown to be a highly ecologically sensitive zone, but we have no choice but to consider the viability of either of the two alignments for the purpose of the connectivity of the Outer Ring Road and while doing so we have to balance the aforesaid factor and also the interest of the private land owners as against the interest of the public. Apart from the above, we have also to take into consideration the factors that the major stretch of the Outer Ring Road is said to have been completed, even in the Western Sector, and only a small stretch involving the plots of the appellants, is yet to be completed. 31. There is no doubt that in the facts of this case the public interest will out-weigh the interest of the individual plot holders. The only consideration is with regard to the preservation of the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as, Plot No.300 mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23rd December, 2006. The only consideration is with regard to the preservation of the water bodies which are yet untouched, such as, Plot No.300 mentioned in the report of the Central Water Commission and also in the letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23rd December, 2006. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants have their positive value but looking at the problem holistically, we are of the view that their objections to the use of the lands for the purpose of the Outer Ring Road have to give way to the construction of the said road. However, while constructing the portion of the road affecting the plots in question, maximum care has to be taken by the concerned authorities to preserve as far as possible the water bodies over the road is to be constructed. 32. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants alleging that adequate opportunity had not been given to them under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to voice their objections, is without substance as the objections filed were duly considered by the Special Deputy Collector and rejected by his order dated 21st July 2006. 33. Although, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the three appeals or to entertain the two writ petitions, we dispose of the same with a direction to the authorities to take all possible steps to ensure that the water bodies in the area are not unduly affected and are preserved to the maximum extent possible during the construction of the remaining portion of the Outer Ring Road on the Western Sector”. 30. Indisputably, there are no water bodies in the lands of the appellants. All through, the contention of the appellants is that there are water bodies in Survey Nos.291, 298, 299 and 300 of Puppalaguda village and these water bodies are being affected by the ORR Project. The same issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jayabheri Properties Private Limited case. The Supreme Court called for the report of the Central Water Commission. The Central Water Commission conducted spot study and submitted its report. It is explicit from the report of the Central Water Commission that no water bodies were existing as on the date of the inspection in Plot Nos.291, 298 and 299. The Supreme Court called for the report of the Central Water Commission. The Central Water Commission conducted spot study and submitted its report. It is explicit from the report of the Central Water Commission that no water bodies were existing as on the date of the inspection in Plot Nos.291, 298 and 299. The Supreme Court considered the report of the Central Water Commission and refused to interfere with the acquisition of lands in respect of western sector of the ORR Project. In view of the judgment of the apex Court in Jayabheri Properties Private Limited case, it is impermissible for the appellants herein to contend that the notification issued by the Government for acquisition of their lands for the purpose of the ORR Project is bad on the ground of existence of water bodies in lands bearing Survey Nos.291, 298 and 299. 31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that unless the plan comes into operation, no development can be carried out and acquisition of land for the ORR Project without its inclusion in the Master Plan is contrary to provisions of the 1975 Act and also the rules framed therein. In a way, his contention is that first Master plan must indicate the existence of Outer Ring Road and then the proceedings under the 1894 Act can be initiated to acquire land for formation of the ORR Project. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the Master Plan prepared in 1980 does not contain ORR and idea of forming ORR came to be conceived by the authorities in the year 2001, and after prolonged correspondence between various authorities, the modified master plan came to be approved by the Government on 3.4.2008, vide G.O.Ms.No.288, (Municipal Administration and Urban Development) Department and any proceedings initiated for the ORR Project prior to the approval of the modified Master Plan are ab initio void. 32. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that initiation of proceedings for modification of the Master Plan and initiation of proceedings for acquisition of the land for ORR Project under the provisions of the 1894 Act are distinctive and there is no bar for the Government to acquire the land for the public purpose. 32. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that initiation of proceedings for modification of the Master Plan and initiation of proceedings for acquisition of the land for ORR Project under the provisions of the 1894 Act are distinctive and there is no bar for the Government to acquire the land for the public purpose. It is further contended that it is a sheer coincidence that implementation of ORR and over all revision of Master Plan for Hyderabad Urban Development Area are happening at the same time, and they are different from one another and the former is not dependent on the latter. 33. In Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd. & Ors.’s case (14 supra), the issue involved was whether town and country planning development was justified in rejecting the application of the owners of the lands situated in B & K villages, which were within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat constituted under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act before approval of the draft development plans by the State Government. The Supreme Court held that rejection of the applications submitted by the owners of the lands situated in B & K villages pending approval of the draft development plans cannot be justified. In the aforesaid decision, B & K villages were not brought within the purview of development area by the time the owners of the lands situated in B & K villages submitted their applications to the respective gram panchayats for grant of permission. 34. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the lands owned by the appellants are included in the development area as defined in Section 2(f) of the 1975 Act. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 35. In State of Tamilnadu and another v. A.Mohammed Yousef and others’s case (5 supra), the Supreme Court held that a proceeding under Land Acquisition Act read with Section 70 of the Madras Housing Board Act, can be commenced only after framing the scheme for which the land is required, but not before. The proposition of law laid down therein came to be doubted in a subsequent case in State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan (7 supra) and referred the matter to a three Judge Bench. The proposition of law laid down therein came to be doubted in a subsequent case in State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan (7 supra) and referred the matter to a three Judge Bench. It has been observed in State of Tamil Nadu v. L.Krishnan’s case (7 supra), after referring Mohammed Yousef’s case as hereunder: “The facts in Mohammed Yousef are these: the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued stating the public purpose as construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Admittedly not even a draft scheme was framed by the Housing Board by the date of the said notification. On the contrary, the contention of the State was that only after the acquisition proceedings are completed and possession of the land taken, would they frame a scheme. Alternately, it was contended by the State that framing of a scheme is not a precondition for issuance of valid notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the land for construction of houses by the Housing Board. The High Court had struck down the notification on the ground that the public purpose mentioned therein was too vague in the absence of details relating to the scheme for which the acquisition was sought to be made. The High Court opined that in the absence of such a scheme with necessary particulars the landowners cannot effectively avail of the opportunity given by Section 5-A. In this Court, however, the main contention of the respondent-land-owners was that the framing of a scheme by the Housing Board under the provisions of the Housing Board Act is precondition to a valid notification under Section 4 where the land is proposed to be acquired for the purpose of the Housing Board. In view of the said contention, this Court examined the scheme of the Act and held that inasmuch as acquisition of the land is a part and parcel of the execution of a scheme framed by the Board under the Act, the acquisition must follow the scheme and cannot precede it. The Bench further observed that unless such a scheme with requisite particulars is duly published, it may not be possible for the land-owners to object to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the land is not suitable for the scheme at all and/or that it does not serve the stated public purpose. The Bench further observed that unless such a scheme with requisite particulars is duly published, it may not be possible for the land-owners to object to the proposed acquisition on the ground that the land is not suitable for the scheme at all and/or that it does not serve the stated public purpose. The Bench observed that the power of the Board to frame a scheme is regulated by the provisions of the Act, which, inter alia, provide a full opportunity to the affected persons to object to the scheme. Even after the final publication of the scheme and after its coming into force, it was pointed but, the scheme can yet be altered or cancelled as provided under Section 56 of the Act. For all these reasons, the Bench held that "a proceeding under Land Acquisition Act read with Section 70 of the Madras Housing Board Act can be commenced only after framing the scheme for which the land is required". 25. Unfortunately, the provisions in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 35 and Section 36 were not brought to the notice of the bench nor were the earlier Constitution Bench decisions of this Court brought to its notice, to which decision we may now turn. But one more relevant aspect before we refer to them. 26. After, and in the light of, the impugned judgment, the Tamil Nadu Legislature has amended the Housing Board Act with retrospective effect with a view to remove the basis of the said judgment and providing expressly that existence of a scheme framed by the Housing Board is not a pre-condition for acquiring land for the purpose of the Board. The validity of the said Amendment Act has also been questioned in the connected matters but the necessity to go into that question will arise only if we agree with the reasoning and conclusions in the decision under appeal. The validity of the said Amendment Act has also been questioned in the connected matters but the necessity to go into that question will arise only if we agree with the reasoning and conclusions in the decision under appeal. Indeed, Sri Salve's argument was that the decision of the High Court is unsustainable even without reference to the said Amendment Act and it is on that basis that he made his submissions.” The Supreme Court after considering the provisions of the Madras Housing Board Act came to the conclusion that merely because the Housing Board Act contemplates acquisition of land as part of a housing or improvement scheme, it does not follow that no land needed for the purpose of the Housing Board Act can be acquired until and unless a scheme is prepared and finalized by the Board and becomes effective under the provisions contained in Chapter VII of the T.N. Housing Board Act, 1961. 36. A question as to whether notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire an area which had not been declared as a development area under Section 12(1) of the Delhi Development Act nor was there a master plan drawn up in accordance with Section 7 of that Act came up consideration in Aflatoon’s case (3 supra). It was argued before the Supreme Court that under Section 12(3) of the Delhi Development Act, no development of land can be undertaken or carried out except as provided in that sub-section. This argument was negatived by the Constitution Bench holding that: (SCC pp.294-95, para.23) “The planned development of Delhi had been decided upon by the Government before 1959, viz., even before the Delhi Development Act came into force. It is true that there could be no planned development of Delhi except in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Development Act after that Act came into force, but there was no inhibition in acquiring land for planned development of Delhi under the Act before the master Plan was ready (See the decision in Patna Improvement Trust v. Lakshmi Devi (1963 Supp (2) SCR 812). In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. In other words, the fact that actual development is permissible in an area other than a development area with the approval or sanction of the local authority did not preclude the Central Government from acquiring the land for planned development under the Act. Section 12 is concerned only with the planned development. It has nothing to do with acquisition of property; acquisition generally precedes development. For planned development in an area other than a development area it is only necessary to obtain the sanction or approval of the local authority as provided in Section 12 (3). The Central Government could acquire any property under the Act and develop it after obtaining the approval of the local authority. " 37. The issue that calls for adjudication in these Writ Appeals is: Whether the proceedings initiated by the Government for acquiring land of the appellants for formation of ORR Project contravenes any of the provisions of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and rules framed thereunder? 38. Indisputably, the lands owned by the appellants/writ petitioners are in developed area as defined in Section 2(f) of the 1975 Act. Section 18 of the 1975 Act empowers the Government to acquire land for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under the Act. Section 18 of the 1975 Act, reads as hereunder:- “Acquisition and Disposal of land 18. Compulsory acquisition of land:-(1) If, in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under this Act, the Government may acquire such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (2) Where any land has been acquired by the Government they may, after they have taken possession of the land, transfer the land to the Authority or any local authority for the purpose for which the land has been acquired on payment by the Authority or the local authority of the compensation awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by the Government in connection with the acquisition”. 39. Section 19 deals with disposal of land by the Authority or the local authority concerned. 39. Section 19 deals with disposal of land by the Authority or the local authority concerned. (1)Subject to any directions given by the Government under this Act, the authority or, as the case may be, the local authority concerned may dispose of ----- (a) any land acquired by the Government and transferred to it, without undertaking or carrying out any development thereon; or (b) any such land after taking or carrying out such development as it thinks fir; to such persons in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as it considers expedient for securing the development of the area concerned according to plan. (2) The powers of Authority, or as the case may be, of the local authority concerned with respect to the disposal of land under sub-section (1) shall be so exercised as to secure so far as practicable, that persons who are living or carrying on business or other activities on the land shall, if they desire to obtain accommodation on land belonging to the Authority or the local authority concerned and are willing to comply with any requirements of the authority or the local authority concerned as to is development and use, have an opportunity to obtain thereon accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements on terms settled with due regard to the price at which any such land has been acquired from them: Provided that where the Authority or the local authority concerned proposes to dispose of by sale any land without any development having been undertaken or carried out thereon, it shall offer the land in the first instance to the persons from whom it was acquired, if they desire to purchase it subject to such requirements as to its development and use as the Authority or the local authority concerned may think fit to impose. (3) Nothing in this Act, shall be construed as enabling the Authority or the local authority concerned to dispose of land by way of gift, mortgage or charge, but subject to the aforesaid, any reference in this Act to the disposal of land shall be construed as reference to the disposal thereof in any manner, whether by way of sale, exchange or lease or by the creation of any easement right or privilege or otherwise”. 40. 40. A reading of the above referred provisions indicates that the Government is empowered to acquire land for the purpose of development or for any other purpose under the 1975 Act. There is no dispute that the lands are acquired for the purpose of formation of the ORR Project. It is strenuously contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the concept of ORR was not there in 1980 Master Plan and it was conceived only in 2001 and it came to be materialized by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 3.4.2008. Therefore, by the date of initiation of proceedings under the 1894 Act for acquiring the land for the ORR Project, the ORR Project was not crystallized. 41. Learned Senior Counsel laid much emphasis on G.O.Ms.No.442 (Municipal Administration & Urban Development (II) Department) dated 19.10.2004, wherein it is stated that Hyderabad Urban Development Authority has been contemplating to undertake the development of the 2nd Ring Road since 1997. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority had finalized the alignment of the 2nd Ring Road in consultation with Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, I.T.Department, Industries and Commerce Department, Roads and Buildings Department, and A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. By referring the said G.O., learned Senior Counsel contended that the ORR was not conceived in 1980 Master Plan. Laying much emphasis on the memo dated 26.5.2007, learned counsel contends that the modifications are extensive and major and thus, no development activity can be taken up till the modifications were given effect by the Government in accordance with the provisions of the 1975 Act. The same contention was advanced before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has gone through the report on Master Plan and came to the conclusion that ORR was conceived in 1980 Master Plan itself. 42. For better appreciation, we may refer the relevant portion of the judgment impugned in these appeals, which reads as hereunder:- “At the hearing, the learned Advocate General produced before the Court a copy of the draft modified Master Plan, which contains the ORR as notified in the Master Plan of 1980 and the ORR as presently being implemented. The 1980 ORR is marked in yellow and the ORR, which is now being implemented, is shown in pink. The 1980 ORR is marked in yellow and the ORR, which is now being implemented, is shown in pink. As the learned counsel for the petitioners seriously disputed the claim of the respondents that the 1980 Master Plan envisaged the ORR, I have carefully scrutinized the draft Master Plan published by the Authority with the title “ A plan for Sustainable Development”. In page 2 of the said Book, with reference to the 1980 Master Plan it is stated as under: “The Government of AP constituted the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority under the Andhra Pradesh Ubran Areas (Development) Act, 1975, in the year 1975. In 1980 the HUDA notified a Master Plan for the rest of the metropolitan area (1692.27 sqkm). In the following decades, HUDA notified 18 Zonal Development Plans (ZDP) till 1994. These covered both MCH area as well as the metropolitan zones. A few ZDPs were enforced even for smaller pockets like Chintalbasti”. 43. Annexure-II of the Book published edited parts of the report on Master Plan for non-Municipal area (1980) of the Hyderabad Development Area. At page 166, the relevant part of the report on 1980 Master Plan reads as under: “The inner Ring Road as per the notified Master Plan is proposed to connect Uppal-Industrial area to Saroornagar, Nagarjunasagar Road to Defence Labs, Katedan Industrial area & Mehidipatnam to Banjara Hills. The width of the road proposed is 150 ft. Intermediate Ring Road and Outer Ring Road are proposed in the peripheral area to connect the major industrial areas and ring towns such as Ramachandrapuram, Medchal, Ghatkesar etc. In order to avoid the truck traffic entering the city and congesting the existing roads, major truck terminals are and proposed on Bombay Road ( NH No.9) at Kukatpally, second on Bangalore route opposite to Police Academy ( on NH No.7) and the third on the Vijayawada road ( on NH No.9) . In addition to those transport nodes are provided on the major intersections of the arterial roads”. The above reproduced portion of the repot on 1980 Master Plan, clearly shows that the Master Plan as approved in the year 1980 and has been presently in existence envisaged the ORR. In addition to those transport nodes are provided on the major intersections of the arterial roads”. The above reproduced portion of the repot on 1980 Master Plan, clearly shows that the Master Plan as approved in the year 1980 and has been presently in existence envisaged the ORR. Though the petitioners denied existence of such a provision in the Master Plan and the claim of the respondents that on account of the change in the scale the location and the alignment of the ORR were required to be changed, they failed to produce any material in support of such a denial. The only circumstance on which the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on is Memo No.9225/11/2005 dated 26-5-2007 wherein objections were invited for modifications/suggestions on the draft revised Master Plan for undertaking several works including incorporation of the ORR alignment. On a careful consideration of the contents of the report on the 1980 Master Plan and the Memo dated 26-5-2007 issued by the Government, it is clear that the ORR was already envisaged in the Master Plan approved in the year 1980 and one of the modifications proposed was to incorporate the ORR alignment. The petitioners have not denied the claim of the respondents that due to the change of the scale, the alignment of the ORR has got changed. I have, therefore, no reason to reject the plea of the respondents that the ORR was already in existence in the approved Master Plan and what has been proposed is only incorporation of the changed alignment of the ORR and not the inclusion of the ORR as such for the first time in the Master Plan.” 44. We too have gone through the Master Plan 1980. Formation of the ORR was conceived in 1980 Master Plan. Of course, the ORR presently contemplated substantially varies with the ORR conceived in the year 1980. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that 1980 Master Plan does not contain a provision for ORR has no substance. We totally agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on this aspect. 45. It is nextly contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the modified Master Plan is totally a new Master Plan, and therefore, new Master Plan must be in accordance with Sections 6 to 9 and Rule 12 of the 1975 Act. We totally agree with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on this aspect. 45. It is nextly contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the modified Master Plan is totally a new Master Plan, and therefore, new Master Plan must be in accordance with Sections 6 to 9 and Rule 12 of the 1975 Act. He emphasized that since the modified Master plan is totally a new Master Plan, the procedure contemplated under Section 12, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be made applicable. Even if the said procedure is made applicable, the Government cannot give effect to major changes to the existing Master Plan. Section 12 of the 1975 Act has already been extracted supra. Under sub-section (1) of Section 12, the authority may make such modifications to the plan, as it thinks fit, which do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan. Under sub-section (2) of Section 12, the Government has suo motu power to modify the existing plan, where such modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise. 46. A plain reading of the above-referred two provisions indicates that the power of the Government to modify the plans is very wide and no restrictions are imposed on the Government with regard to the nature of modifications. 47. Learned Senior Counsel contends that since the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for brevity, “the Rules”) is not followed, G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 3.4.2008, whereunder modified master plan of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority came to be approved, cannot be sustained. Learned Senior Counsel laid much emphasis on Rule 12 (4) of the Rules, which reads as hereunder:- “12(4): Soon after the preparation of the draft (Master) Plan for the development area or any part thereof, the Authority shall publish a notice in Form No.1 appended to these rules in a prominent place in atleast three local daily newspapers inviting objections and suggestions allowing a period not less than 15 days from any person or local authority. The said notice shall also indicate the place and time where copies of the draft Master plan may be inspected; any person residing or owning property within the inspected area or local authority operating within the affected area will be entitled to represent in writing to the Authority any objections and suggestions which they may have in regard to the Land Use Map or the Draft Master Plan. 48. It is trite to note that what is approved under G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 03.4.2008 is the modified Master Plan. The relevant rule applicable in case of modification to the Master Plan by the Government is Rule 13A, which reads as hereunder:- 13-A. Modifications to the Master Plan by the Government:- (1) In case the Government desire to make any modifications to the Master Plan under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act, a notification shall [after consultation with the Authority] be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in such form as the Government may deem fit inviting objections and suggestions from any person or local authority affected directly or indirectly with respect to the Master Plan proposed to be modified giving Fifteen Days time in respect of lands proposed to be converted to other than industrial use and Seven days time in respect of lands proposed to be converted from any use to `industrial use’ for the receipt of such objections and suggestions. (2) Soon after the objections and suggestions are received by the Government, the Government may, if necessary, have local enquiries conducted and give an opportunity to the persons effected to state their objections before the modifications are approved and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette.] 49. A reading of G.O.Ms.No.288 to which notification is appended indicates that the procedure prescribed under Section 13-A of the Rules 1977 has been scrupulously followed. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the modified Master Plan is not in accordance with the Rules has no substance. 50. Learned Senior counsel submits that the power of the Government under subsection (2) of Section 12 is not an absolute power and the word “or otherwise” stated in sub-section (2) of Section 12 must be read as “Ejusdem Generes”. What the learned counsel means to say is that the Government also cannot modify the master plan on vital aspects. 50. Learned Senior counsel submits that the power of the Government under subsection (2) of Section 12 is not an absolute power and the word “or otherwise” stated in sub-section (2) of Section 12 must be read as “Ejusdem Generes”. What the learned counsel means to say is that the Government also cannot modify the master plan on vital aspects. The words “or otherwise” must be construed as “Ejusdem Generes” with the words immediately preceding them, and therefore, even the Government cannot effect important alteration in the Master Plan. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Queen’s Bench Division in `The Corporation of Portsmouth v. Smith (1883 Vol. XIII). The case relates to Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847. The word `street’ shall extend to and include any road, square, court, alley and thoroughfare within the limits of the special Act”. Section 53 of the Town Improvement Clauses Act, 1847 reads as hereunder:- “If any street, although a public highway at the passing of the special Act, have not theretofore been well and sufficiently paved and flagged, or otherwise made good, the commissioners may cause such street or the parts thereof not so paved and flagged or otherwise made good, to be paved and flagged or otherwise made good, in such manner as they think fit, and the expenses incurred by the commissioners in respect thereof shall be repaid to them by the occupiers of the land abutting on such street, or such parts thereof as have not been theretofore well and sufficiently paved and flagged or otherwise made good, and such expenses shall be recoverable from such occupiers respectively as hereinafter provided with respect to private improvement expenses, and thereafter such street shall be repaid by the commissioners out of the rates levied under this or the Special Act”. 51. The question was, whether it had been “otherwise made good” before it was flagged and paved. While interpreting the said words the Court held that the words “or otherwise made good” shall be read by keeping in view the words ‘paved and flagged” preceding the said words. 52. 51. The question was, whether it had been “otherwise made good” before it was flagged and paved. While interpreting the said words the Court held that the words “or otherwise made good” shall be read by keeping in view the words ‘paved and flagged” preceding the said words. 52. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, a plain reading of sub-section(2) of Section 12 does not give any scope to infer that the Government’s power to modify the master plan is controlled by language used in Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the 1975 Act. The provision is manifest that the Government has power to give effect to any modifications to the Master Plan and its power is not controlled as in the case of power of the Authority. The learned Single Judge has considered the scope of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12 of the 1975 Act and rejected the contentions advanced by the appellants by giving cogent and convincing reasons. We do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on this aspect. 53. In view of the above discussion, we find that these appeals are devoid of merit and accordingly, they are hereby dismissed with costs.