Judgment DESHMUKH, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this court, seeking exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside letter dated 24.10.2011 issued by the District Collector, Jalna (Respondent No.2) and mandamus to him to issue ‘Sanad' in favour of the Petitioner, granting permission for Non Agricultural use ("N.A. use" for short) in respect of lands bearing survey Nos. 238/3,4,5 and 6, for an area admeasuring 59,530 sq. meter, situated at Partur, District Jalna. 3. The petition concerns reluctance of Respondent No. 2 to grant permission for N.A. use. 4. According to the petitioner, on purchase of land bearing survey Nos. 238/3 to 6 admeasuring 6 Hectare, 45 Are situated at Partur in District Jalna, it had prepared a layout plan and applied to competent authority-Respondent No.2 for grant of N.A. use permission. Respondent No. 2 under letter dated 12.7.2010, had informed, inter alia, that the width of internal road is required to be nine meter instead of six. The proposal, as such, had been turned down by Respondent No.2. Thereupon, by letter dated 10.8.2010, the petitioner had brought to the notice of Respondent No.2 that the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non-Agricultural Assessment) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter, for brevity's sake "The 1969 Rules") provide for and allow six meter width of internal road where length of road is upto 75 meter and as such, proposal submitted for N.A. use of the land complies with the requirements. The petitioner had also approached the Town Planning Authority-Respondent No.3, for deposit of N.A. use layout scrutiny fees and had, accordingly, paid the same by challan on 13.8.2010. Certain deficiencies had again been pointed out by Respondent No. 2 under letter dated 30.8.2010 and he had purportedly rejected the proposal. The petitioner had subsequently, on 8.9.2010, submitted an application for grant of N.A. use permission, after removing the deficiencies as directed by Respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 had again directed the petitioner to comply with certain instructions. Accordingly, the petitioner had complied with necessary requirements as directed by Respondent No.2 and submitted an application to Respondent No.2, under letter dated 1.10.2010. 5. Upon aforesaid, Respondent No.3 had tentatively approved the layout plan on certain conditions under letter dated 1.10.2010. Respondent No. 2 had again directed the petitioner to comply with certain instructions. Accordingly, the petitioner had complied with necessary requirements as directed by Respondent No.2 and submitted an application to Respondent No.2, under letter dated 1.10.2010. 5. Upon aforesaid, Respondent No.3 had tentatively approved the layout plan on certain conditions under letter dated 1.10.2010. Having regard to this, Respondent No. 2, issued letter dated 16.10.2010 seeking no objections from the authorities viz. Sub Divisional Officer, Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Tahsildar, Partur, Town Planner, Jalna, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Partur, Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L. All the authorities had issued no objection certificates in favour of the petitioner. However, under letter dated 8.12.2010, Respondent No.3 purported to point out certain shortcomings and based on the same, Respondent No. 2, under letter dated 15.12.2010 purported to reject proposal of the petitioner, referring to time limit prescribed under Section 44(6) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("MLRC" for short) and Government Resolution dated 13.11.2001, prescribing outer limit of 90 days for granting N.A. permission. 6. The petitioner has claimed that Municipal Council, Partur, the Planning Authority, by letter dated 10.1.2011, had approved layout plan submitted by the petitioner and had also demanded betterment charges in respect of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.1,95,233.75 ps., immediately. 7. By letter dated 11.3.2011, Respondent No.2 had directed the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Partur, to measure the petitioner's land, referring to that the layout has been sanctioned tentatively on certain terms and conditions as stated in said letter. The petitioner had been charged for the same to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/= and the amount has been duly deposited. Thereafter, under letter dated 13.7.2011, Respondent No.3 had recommended final sanction and N.A. use on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 8. Respondent No.2, however, under his letter dated 24.10.2011, communicated to Respondent No. 3 that the policy decision reflected under letter dated 15.7.2010 does not appear to have been complied with and had directed submission of a revised layout plan proposing internal roads to be of 9 meter width. 9. According to the petitioner, said communication has been beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from reopening of proposal, particularly from 14.1.2011 as well as the same is incompatible with the 1969 Rules. 9. According to the petitioner, said communication has been beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from reopening of proposal, particularly from 14.1.2011 as well as the same is incompatible with the 1969 Rules. The petitioner has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.8.2010 in Writ Petition No.2225 of 2010, to buttress their submission that Respondent No. 2 would be outside his jurisdiction after expiry of period of 90 days to refuse N.A. use permission. 10. Respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in reply, contending that pursuant to Section 44(2)(g) of the MLRC, the District Collector is empowered to decide length and width of roads inside a layout for public safety and health, and as such, tried to justify letter dated 12.7.2010. It has been contended that the land of the petitioner is situated within area limits of Municipal Council, Partur and a land development plan is to be sanctioned conforming to standard building by-laws and development control rules and permission for N.A. use of the land should be given pursuant to provisions in the development control rules and not as per the 1969 Rules. It has been alleged that the petitioner intends to have more money by increasing number of plots. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has not submitted revised map showing internal road of 9 meter width to the town planning authority and as such, plan tentatively sanctioned by the town planner would not form basis for grant of N.A. use permission. It has been contended that Respondent No. 2 has communicated to the petitioner under letters dated 12.7.2010, 30.8.2010, 24.10.2011 about internal road width to be 9 meter instead of 6 meter. He has endorsed that the Chief Officer, Municipal Council is empowered to grant development permission in accordance with Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for brevity, "MRTP Act"). He has contended that Section 44 (2)(g) of the MLRC empowers Respondent No. 2 to prescribe road width to be of 9 meter instead of 6 meter for public safety and public health. Respondent No. 2, for said purpose, takes support of a letter dated 14.7.2011, by Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government. He has contended that Section 44 (2)(g) of the MLRC empowers Respondent No. 2 to prescribe road width to be of 9 meter instead of 6 meter for public safety and public health. Respondent No. 2, for said purpose, takes support of a letter dated 14.7.2011, by Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government. of Maharashtra to the Chief Officer, Yawatmal Municipal Council, in connection with government instructions dated 15.9.2010, communicating, inter alia, that stricter of proposed and approved rules of development control are required to be followed and contended that no question of application of 1969 Rules would arise and purported to refer to revised development control rules under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act and contended that the objections with regard to the same are called. It is contended that having regard to rejections on 12.7.2010, 30.8.2010, 30.9.2010, 15.12.2010 and 24.10.2011, the issue of limitation of 90 days does not arise and that no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner pursuant to Section 247 of the MLRC against said orders and the petitioner as such has failed to avail of opportunities. It has been contended that having regard to the variations in area of the proposed land, the differential area would not be available for agricultural use and same would be a fragment under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1969, and, therefore, N.A. permission is not issued to the petitioner. It has been contended that the petition is premature, and as such, is liable to be dismissed. 11. Respondent No. 3, in his response to the petition, has specifically submitted that concerned area in writ petition falls within the limits of Municipal Council, Partur. The Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune, has sanctioned development plan for said area along with standard by-laws and development control rules under notification dated 4.7.1992 pursuant to the provisions of the MRTP Act and that it has been effective from 1.10.1992 and as such, the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Partur, is empowered to permit development of the land within limits of Municipal Council, Partur. It has been referred to that provisions of building by-laws and development control rules are applicable to the land in question for development permission and purported to decline application of the 1969 Rules. It has been referred to that provisions of building by-laws and development control rules are applicable to the land in question for development permission and purported to decline application of the 1969 Rules. It is contended that sanction to layout is a part of development as prescribed under the definition in standard building by-laws and development control rules. The procedure for conversion of use of land from one purpose to the other is laid down under Rule 44 of the MLRC and as such, the District Collector is the concerned authority. It has been contended that Respondent No.2 has given directions that road width in the layout should be 9 meter pursuant to policy decision dated 15.7.2010 and, accordingly, his office had communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 17.11.2011, to submit a revised layout, and therefore, purported to contend that there is no proposal pending with his office. 12. It is apparent from the petition, replies and documents annexed to the petition, as well as the replies, though the respondents have referred to building by-laws and development control rules, yet they have not produced the by-laws or development control rules alleged to be applicable in respect of final development plan of Municipal Council, Partur, requiring internal road to be of 9 meter width. The undercurrent of opposition to reliefs prayed for in the petition has been on alleged/proposed modifications to rules coming to their notice through a communication to some other authority. 13. In all the correspondence that has ensued, save from petitioner's side, the respondents have been shy of making reference to specific Development Control Rules, as alleged, applicable to Municipal Council, Partur area. The petitioner has been specifically making reference to application of 1969 rules all along and had submitted proposal for N.A. use permission, accordingly. The Respondents have proceeded further and directed measurement of the concerned land and for the same the petitioner has been charged. Respondent no.2 has, in fact, taken no objections from various authorities and yet had a relapse and insisted on keeping nine meter width of internal road instead of six meter as allowed under the 1969 Rules on the communication dated 14.07.2011 by the Under Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yawatmal. 14. Respondent no.2 has, in fact, taken no objections from various authorities and yet had a relapse and insisted on keeping nine meter width of internal road instead of six meter as allowed under the 1969 Rules on the communication dated 14.07.2011 by the Under Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yawatmal. 14. It can be seen that the scope of powers of Respondent No. 2 is with respect to grant of permission for N.A. use on the application made pursuant to Section 44 of the MLRC. His powers are as such circumscribed by the provisions there under, particularly under clause (c) where under he can grant permission on such terms and conditions as may be specified subject to the rules made in that behalf by the State government, or he can refuse permission applied for, if necessary so to do so as to secure public health, safety or convenience or if use is contrary to the scheme for planned development. In effect, the permission for N. A. use would be refused only under aforesaid circumstances not otherwise. 15. While it comes to granting permission for development pursuant to Section 45 of the MRTP Act, the planning authority, Municipal Council, Partur, has already granted sanction to the land development lay out of the petitioner. 16. The planning authority has approved the layout submitted by the petitioner pursuant to its empowerment according to the provisions under Sections 43,44,45 and 46 of the MRTP Act. It would be pertinent to note that the development control rules, as stated hereinabove, have not been placed on record and the layout as submitted by the petitioner adhering to the 1969 rules has been approved and sanctioned by the planning authority. 17. It is quite discernible, Respondent No.2 appears to be in oblivion of that the letter dated 14.7.2011 has been addressed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development, Govt. of Maharashtra, to the Planning Authority-the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yawatmal, communicating that the directions dated 15.9.2010 by the Government could not be effective and put in operation till the process contemplated under Section 37 (1) and (2) of the MRTP Act is completed, particularly until sanction to the modification under Section 37(2) is granted and that the government orders incongruous to Section 37(2) would be inoperative. It appears, Respondent No. 2 has not considered that the communication clearly sets out that stricter provisions of the existing or proposed rules should be preferred only where objections/suggestions have been called for pursuant to Section 37(1) for modifications in the development control rules. Even said communication has been endorsed only to the Planning Authorities and not to Respondent No.2. 18. A co-ordinate bench of the is court had an occasion to deal with the directions issued on 15.9.2010 under Section 37(1) read with Section 154 of the MRTP Act, in Writ Petition No.2287 of 2010. By an order in the matter, it has been made clear that the modifications in the plan become effective only after those are sanctioned by the State Govt. under Section 37(2). The Court had even declined to buy line of the State Government that, Section 154 empowers the State Government to make the modifications effective even before those are sanctioned. It has been observed in the order that though the State Government has powers to issue directions to the planning authority etc., those are for efficient administration of the MRTP Act and the modifications are effective only after they are sanctioned by the State Govt. and not before it, as such, the directions dated 15.9.2010 issued by the State Govt. the ones which are not consistent with Section 154 were considered to be unsustainable and thus, had set aside clause (D) thereof. 19. In the present case, the development plan in respect of Municipal Council, Partur had been sanctioned and notification to that effect had been published way back in 1992 and has been effective since 1.10.1992. It is absolutely not the case of respondents that action for modification contemplated under Section 37 in respect of development plan of Partur Municipal Council, is under progress and/or for that matter, development control rules in respect of Municipal Council, Partur and objections/ suggestions from the concerned persons have been called for. 20. Planning of the area is a concern of Planning Authority. Road width intra development layout would hardly be a province of Respondent No. 2 and has already been taken care of by the Planning Authority. 20. Planning of the area is a concern of Planning Authority. Road width intra development layout would hardly be a province of Respondent No. 2 and has already been taken care of by the Planning Authority. While the 1969 rules are concerned, it cannot be said that the prescriptions thereunder are without considering the aspects of public health, safety and convenience and thus on that count Respondent No. 2 would not be able to keep back grant of permission for N.A. use to the land in respect of which application has been made by petitioner, so long as the rules govern the area concerned. 21. A duty has been enjoined under the provisions, particularly under first proviso to section 45 of the MRTP Act to see that permission by the planning authority has to be in conformity with the requirements of the relevant development control rules framed under the MRTP Act or regulations framed in this behalf under any law for the time being in force and further that the same does not violate either the provisions of any draft or final development plan or proposed rules being published by means of notice and submitted for sanction to the Govt. under the MRTP Act. There is a further rider to the effect that whenever a deemed permission contravenes the first proviso referred to above, the same would be deemed to be unauthorized for the purpose of sections 52 to 57 of the MRTP Act. 22. Control on development and use of land included in the development plans under the MRTP Act is an area under the power and authority of planning authority and it is regulated by Section 45. Further, under Section 46, the planning authority is obligated to have regard to the provisions of draft or final plan or proposal published by means of notice, submitted or sanctioned under the MRTP Act. Thus, it would not be inappropriate to say that the development of the land is a concern for the planning authority. 23. Respondent No. 2 appears to have been bogged down under an impression supplemented by communication dated 14.7.2011 to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yawatmal. Thus, it would not be inappropriate to say that the development of the land is a concern for the planning authority. 23. Respondent No. 2 appears to have been bogged down under an impression supplemented by communication dated 14.7.2011 to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yawatmal. Perusal of communication dated 14.7.2011 to Municipal Council, Yawatmal, does show that the same would be applicable only in such cases where the municipal councils/corporations which have called for objections/suggestions in respect of proposed Development Control Rules and have issued a notice in respect of the same. 24. Reference to communication dated 14.07.2011 by Respondent No. 2 in the impugned letter is misplaced and not germane. The communication to Municipal Council, Yawatmal, would not be proper to be taken recourse to in the matter before Respondents No. 2 and 3 and on the basis of the same Respondents No. 2 and 3 would not be able to object to and decline sanction to the proposal for N.A. use of the concerned land. The communication dated 24.10.2011 does not appear to have been based on the existing, effective and operative rules and appears to have been influenced by proposed modifications in respect of other Municipal Council and not of Partur and as such the same would not be sustainable. An application for N.A. use permission in compliance of rules is required to be processed and should not be detained. 25. The reasons assigned in communication dated 14.10.2011 would not be within the authoritative jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2. There appears to be jurisdictional overreach by Respondent No.2 in the matter. Thus, the position emerges that, Respondent No.2 has over-travelled his authority and trod on an area concerning Planning authority. 26. The other contention of the petitioner with regard to automatic sanction to N.A. use permission by efflux of time would not be of any significance since at least on record, refusal has been exhibited by Respondent No. 2 on a few occasions, albeit its efficacy was doused by subsequent events. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the same in the present matter. 27. The impugned communication dated 24.10.2011 showing reluctance to grant permission for Non Agricultural use is not warranted. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the same in the present matter. 27. The impugned communication dated 24.10.2011 showing reluctance to grant permission for Non Agricultural use is not warranted. Respondent No. 2, therefore, should pass appropriate orders on the proposal and applications made by the petitioner for granting permission for N.A. use of its' concerned land in accordance with the existing, operative and applicable rules holding the field and not being influenced by the communication referred to in the affidavit in reply, to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yawatmal, by the Under Secretary, Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra and `dehors' his communications dated 12.7.2010, 30.8.2010, 30.9.2010, 15.12.2010 and 24.10.2011 and that dated 17.11.2011 of Respondent No.3. 28. The petition thus stands allowed. The order/communication dated 24.10.2011 issued by Respondent No. 2 and that of Respondent No. 3 dated 17.11.2011 are quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 2 shall carry forward the proposal/application of Petitioner in accordance with law. 29. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.