JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vijay Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.1992 passed by Prescribed Authority, Lucknow Development Authority directing for demolition of unauthorized construction raised by petitioner at plot No. 3/545, Vivek Khand, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow for which notice was already issued to him on 30.1.1992; and, appellate order dated 21.2.1995, whereby petitioner’s appeal has been rejected on the ground of limitation. 3. The brief facts, borne out from pleadings in the writ petition, show that petitioner possessed lease hold plot No. 3/545 at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and made construction thereon. He was served with notice dated 30.1.1992 by Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “LDA”) purported to have been issued under Section 27 (1) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1973”), alleging that the construction was wholly unauthorized, being without sanction of map and, therefore, it should be demolished. Petitioner’s objection dated 24.2.1992 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) pleaded that he submitted plan/map for construction of a House in 1989 but received no order of sanction from respondent-Authority, namely, LDA. He, therefore, started construction. While construction was going on, he received a notice dated 27.12.1991 directing him to stop construction being unauthorised, though, by that time, construction had already completed. Since petitioner made construction on his own plot, there is no encroachment, therefore, notice is not legal and deserved to be revoked. 4. He further stated and admitted in para 9 of his objection giving details of a number of Houses where constructions made were unauthorised i.e. without the map having been sanctioned by LDA and alleged that in none of these cases, any action of demolition has been taken by LDA. 5. After considering petitioner’s objection dated 24.2.1992, wherein he admitted unauthorised construction, i.e., without sanction of map, competent authority passed order on 4.3.1992 for demolition of unauthorised construction. Thereagainst, petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.7.1994. 5. After considering petitioner’s objection dated 24.2.1992, wherein he admitted unauthorised construction, i.e., without sanction of map, competent authority passed order on 4.3.1992 for demolition of unauthorised construction. Thereagainst, petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.7.1994. Thereagainst petitioner filed restoration application alongwith delay condonation application but the same has been dismissed on the ground that Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1963”) does not apply in these proceedings and, therefore, no power vested with the appellate authority to condone delay by resorting to Section 5 of Limitation Act. 6. Sri Seth, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, relied on certain authorities to contend that delay could have been condoned by appellate authority by taking recourse to Section 5 of Limitation Act. 7. His first reliance is on Guru Prasad Dixit v. State of U.P. and others, 1969 ALJ 460, wherein the Court held, if no procedure is prescribed for a quasi-judicial proceeding, and such an authority has passed an order disposing case ex parte, or if it is dismissed for default, the power to pass such order was linked and integrated with the power to set aside such an order, when sufficient cause for default is shown. Therein an attempt was made to bring in the procedure prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) but the Court clearly held that Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. will not be applicable. In my view, this judgment, however, nowhere throws any light on the question whether Section 5 of Act, 1963 will apply to the proceedings before authorities under Act, 1973 which are not Courts, Tribunals, but executive authorities, though, discharging duties consistent with the principle of natural justice or quasi judicial in nature, as the case may be, which are governed by the procedure prescribed in statute i.e. Act, 1973. The Act, 1963 has not been applied to such proceedings, as are up for consideration in this case. 8. Next is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Srinivasan, (2000) 3 SCC 242 , wherein the Court in the context of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 held that Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. is not applicable to the proceedings before District Forum or State Commission. The two authorities, however, have inherent power to reject a complaint when they are satisfied that the same amounts to gross abuse of process of Forum. The two authorities, however, have inherent power to reject a complaint when they are satisfied that the same amounts to gross abuse of process of Forum. It has further held that Consumer Disputes Redressal Agency has inherent power and jurisdiction to restore complaint, dismissed in default, if good reason for non appearance is shown. Here also there was no question of limitation came up for consideration in regard to the proceedings before Consumer Disputes Adjudicatory Forums or State Commission. 9. The third authority is J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (1996) 6 SCC 92 , where also power to recall an ex parte order was held, to vest, inherently, in the Tribunal exercising power of Appellate Tribunal under Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 but here also the question of applicability of Act, 1963 to those proceedings was not involved at all. 10. Then comes the next decision, namely, Smt. Manarawati v. City Magistrate (Prescribed Authority), Jaunpur and others, 1995 (5) ARC 497. In this decision also nothing has been said about applicability of Act, 1963 to a proceeding where Statute of limitation has not been applied, either by the concerned statute itself or otherwise. To the same effect is the decision in Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao and others, (2002) 3 SCC 195 . 11. Per contra, there are catena of decisions where it has been held in respect to proceedings before Tribunals/quasi judicial bodies (where Act, 1963 is not applicable since it is applicable to the Courts) that if the Statute concerned has not made Act, 1963 applicable, provisions thereof cannot be applied to such proceedings. 12. In Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P. and others, (1976) 4 SCC 330 , the Apex Court considered a similar provision which required filing of renewal application within fifteen days which could be extended but not beyond 15 days. The Apex Court held that Section 5 of the Act, 1963 is not applicable since the matter was covered by Section 58 (2) and (3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1939. It further held, if the application for renewal is beyond time by more than fifteen days, the authority shall not be entitled to entertain it or in other words, it shall have no power to condone delay. It further held, if the application for renewal is beyond time by more than fifteen days, the authority shall not be entitled to entertain it or in other words, it shall have no power to condone delay. There being express provision for making application for renewal condonable only if it is not more than 15 days, the provision expressly excludes not only power of condonation of delay under Section 5 but being special enactment, the said period, even otherwise, cannot be extended. The Court held that the provision may look harsh, but in the scheme of the Statute, legislature has provided the same and it should not be disturbed by the Court. 13. In Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad and others, AIR 1976 SC 177 , the Court said that provisions of Act, 1963 apply only to proceedings in “Courts” and not to appeals or applications before bodies other than Courts such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or Executive Authorities, notwithstanding the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. In Nityananda M. Joshi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1970 SC 209 , the Court held that in view of Sections 4 and 5 of Act, 1963 it would be clear that under the scheme it only deals with applications to Courts. The “Labour Court” is not a “Court” within the meaning of the Act, 1963 and, therefore, an application under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be held barred under Article 137 of Act, 1963 on the plea that claim was for a period beyond three years. 15. In L.S. Synthetics Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and another, AIR 2005 SC 1209 , it was held that provisions of Act, 1963 have no application so far as directions required to be issued by Courts under Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992. It held: “Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only in relation to certain applications and not all applications despite the fact that the words “other proceedings” were added in the long title of the Act in 1963. The provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before bodies other than Courts, such as quasi-judicial tribunal or even an executive authority. The provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the proceedings before bodies other than Courts, such as quasi-judicial tribunal or even an executive authority. The Act primarily applies to the civil proceedings or some special criminal proceedings. Even in a Tribunal, where the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable; the Limitation Act, 1963 per se may not be applied to the proceedings before it. Even in relation to certain civil proceedings, the Limitation Act may not have any application.” (emphasis added) 16. In Damodaran Pillai v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 300 , the Apex Court while considering whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, 1963 would be applicable to the proceedings under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed: “It is also trite that the Civil Court in absence of any express power cannot condone the delay. For the purpose of condonation of delay in absence of applicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court cannot invoke its inherent power.” 17. A Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a member) in M/S Vimal Organics Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ADJ 91 (DB), considering a similar issue in respect to appeals under Section 13 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1977”) read with Rule 9 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1978”), in paras 18 and 19 of judgment, said: “18. The period of limitation, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be said to be a part of procedure only, as an universal proposition. Rather it would depend upon relevant provisions of the statute and the consequences flowing thereof, i.e., as a result of expiry of the period of limitation. In many cases, it may result in accrual of substantive rights to the other side and in those cases, provisions pertaining to limitation cannot be said to be directory but have to be held mandatory. For example, under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a declaration has to be made within one year from the date of notification under Section 4. For example, under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a declaration has to be made within one year from the date of notification under Section 4. The period of one year limitation gets extended by the period for which some interim order of any nature has been passed by a Court of Law. If such a declaration is not made under Section 6 within the aforesaid period, the proceedings will lapse. This view was taken by the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Sukhdev, AIR 1994 SC 1255 and General Manager, Department of Telecommunications, Thiruvananthapuram v. Jacob, AIR 2003 SC 1308 . 19. A Division Bench of this Court in Mahavir Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(8) ADJ 203 (DB), considering the aforesaid provisions in para 54, sub para (iii) held that “the Court does not have the power to extend the period of limitation provided under the Statute.” Similarly, in various taxing statutes where the period of limitation expires, thereafter the authorities cannot proceed to pass orders against the assessee treating it to be procedural only. In those cases expiry of period of limitation provided in the statute result in vested right to the assessee like not to be assessed or face any assessment proceedings etc. before the authority concerned under the relevant Act. The illustrations may be multiplied but we do not wish to do so and feel satisfied by observing that it is not always correct to say that whenever the limitation is prescribed, it is in the nature of procedural law and, therefore, has to be read leniently and must be treated to be directory instead of mandatory. In respect to special enactments which contain substantive provisions as well as procedure to give effect to carrying out the purpose of such Act, if period of limitation is provided the same has been held to be mandatory and once such period has expired, the Court is not competent to extend limitation and thereby nullify the otherwise provision(s) under the statute.” 18. Similarly, in a reference made to a Division Bench as to whether provisions of Act, 1963 would be attracted in contempt proceedings under the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971, this Court in Islamuddin v. Sri Umesh Chandrara Tiwari and another, 2009(5) ADJ 656 : 2009(4) ESC 2145 (AP)(DB), held that it would not be applicable. 19. Similarly, in a reference made to a Division Bench as to whether provisions of Act, 1963 would be attracted in contempt proceedings under the Contempts of Courts Act, 1971, this Court in Islamuddin v. Sri Umesh Chandrara Tiwari and another, 2009(5) ADJ 656 : 2009(4) ESC 2145 (AP)(DB), held that it would not be applicable. 19. In the circumstances I have no manner of doubt that the Appellate Authority has rightly held that he possess no power to condone delay by resorting to Section 5 of Act, 1963. 20. However, the matter does not rest here. There is one more aspect which has to be noticed at this stage. After the judgment was reserved on 31.8.2012, petitioner submitted Civil Misc. Application No. 76867 of 2012 on 4.9.2012 in the Registry, requesting that writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous inasmuch petitioner has transferred property in dispute to Pravin Trivedi and Smt. Mithlesh Singh, vide deed of assignment dated 17.12.1996, and, LDA has entered into compounding with them in respect to objected construction, and this writ petition has rendered infructuous. 21. In my view, this application is not only misconceived but discloses the way in which a statutory body like LDA is permitting, encouraging and compromising something which is patently illegal and that is how indulging and colluding illegal acts of individual and that too with impunity. Once the arguments have been heard and judgment has been reserved, neither any application for withdrawal of writ petition can be permitted for whatever reason nor can be entertained. The application, therefore, submitted by petitioner after the judgment was reserved, cannot be acted upon, and, is liable to be ignored, and, accordingly, stands rejected. 22. So far as the alleged compounding is concerned, I do not find any statutory provision in Act, 1973 permitting such compounding of wholly unauthorised illegal construction raised on a land, within the jurisdiction of a Development Authority constituted under Act, 1973. 23. It would be appropriate to consider certain provisions of Act, 1973 which talks of master plan and development plan and the sanction of map for the purpose of construction on a particular land as a part and parcel thereof. 24. The Act, 1973 gives due importance to Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. What shall contain in Master Plan is provided in Section 8 of Act, 1973 which reads as under: “8. 24. The Act, 1973 gives due importance to Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. What shall contain in Master Plan is provided in Section 8 of Act, 1973 which reads as under: “8. Civil survey of, and master plan for the development area.—(1) The Authority shall, as soon as may be, prepare a master plan for the development area. (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 (whether by the carrying out thereon of development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out; and (b) serve as a basic pattern of framework within which the zonal development plans of the various zones may be prepared. (3) The master plan may provide for any other matter which may be necessary for the proper development of the development area.” 25. The procedure of preparation and approval of Master Plan is provided in Sections 10, 11 and 12 which need not be discussed at this stage since sanction of Master Plan and its enforcement on various dates with respect to different periods under the relevant statute is not disputed. 26. Section 13 talks of amendment of plan. Section 16 prohibits use of land and building in contravention of plans. 27. Section 10 (1) clarifies that the word “Plan” in Sections 11, 12, 14 and 16 would mean Master Plan as well as the Zonal Development Plan for a Zone. 28. Section 13 permits an “Authority” to make such amendment in the Plan which do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan and do not relate to the extent of land uses or standards of population density. Sub-section (2) of Section 13, however, confers full power upon State Government to make amendment in the plan. Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) however provide procedure of such amendments whether proposed to be made by “Authority” or by the “State Government”. Sub-section (2) of Section 13, however, confers full power upon State Government to make amendment in the plan. Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) however provide procedure of such amendments whether proposed to be made by “Authority” or by the “State Government”. It read as under: “(3) Before making any amendments in the plan, the Authority, or, as the case may be, the State Government shall publish a notice in at least one newspaper having circulation in the development area inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed amendments 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 State Government. (4) Every amendment made under this section shall be published in such manner as the Authority or the State Government, as the case may be, may specify, and the amendments shall come into operation either on the date of the first publication or on such other date as the Authority or the State Government, as the case may be, may fix. (5) When the Authority makes any amendment in the plan under sub-section (1) it shall report to the State Government the full particulars of such amendments within thirty days of the date on which such amendments come into operation.” (emphasis added) 29. Whenever a dispute would arise about the amendment sought to be made by Authority that it effects important alternations in the character of plan etc., the dispute has to be settled by State Government. 30. A perusal of above provision shows that compliance of procedure is mandatory. 31. Section 16 puts an embargo on use or permission to be used of any building or land in a plan area otherwise than in conformity with such plan. However, if on the date of enforcement of plan, the land or building was used in any other manner, the same would continue subject to terms and conditions as may be prescribed by bye-laws. Use of land or building in violation of plan and where development of land has been allowed to any person or body; in violation of the conditions of such development, such infraction is an offence punishable under Section 26 of Act, 1973. 32. Use of land or building in violation of plan and where development of land has been allowed to any person or body; in violation of the conditions of such development, such infraction is an offence punishable under Section 26 of Act, 1973. 32. Section 27 provides for demolition of a construction made in violation of the plan and procedure to be observed before passing such order of demolition. 33. The offences under Act, 1973 are compoundable under Section 32 which reads as under: “32. Composition of offences.—(1) Any offence made punishable by or under this Act may either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by, the Vice-Chairman or any officer authorised by him in that behalf by general or special order, on such terms, including any term as regards payment of a composition fee, as the Vice-Chairman or such officer may think fit. (2) Where an offence has been compounded, the offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect of the offence compounded.” 34. Section 53 confers power upon State Government to exempt, by issuing a Notification in the Gazette, any land or building or classes of land or buildings from all or any of the provisions of the Act or Rules or Regulations framed thereunder. It is not the case of the respondents that any such exemption is applicable in this case. 35. Further, power to make rules has been conferred upon State Government vide Section 55 for carrying out the purposes of Act. The Authorities have been given power to make Regulations under Section 56 which must be consistent with the Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. Such Regulations can be made for the administration of affairs of Authority. 36. It may also be pointed out at this stage that where development is allowed to any person or body, such development shall also be consistent with the plan. 37. This Court finds no provision under the Act, 1973 which entitles the Authority to go for profiteering on an illegal act of encroachment or unauthorised construction in the name of compounding. The compounding contemplated in Section 32 is in respect to offences punishable under the Act. It nowhere provides that once an offence is compounded, an act, which is in violation of Plan, shall also stand regularized or become valid. The compounding contemplated in Section 32 is in respect to offences punishable under the Act. It nowhere provides that once an offence is compounded, an act, which is in violation of Plan, shall also stand regularized or become valid. The effect of compounding is provided in sub-section (2) of Section 32 that an offender, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in respect to the “offence” compounded. This is with regard to the criminal liability fastened upon the person for committing an offence under the Act, 1973. But the prohibition contained in the Act and statutory obligation upon Authorities to set right a person who has faulted/breached such provision by taking appropriate action, e.g. demolition of building by exercising power under Section 27 has not been made inoperated when an offence is compounded. The proceeding prevented as a result of compounding an “offence” relates to offence and illegality/irregularity so prohibited/controlled is under another provision. It may also be noticed that by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1997”), certain other offences have been provided vide Sections 26-D and 28-A. However, removal of any raised construction in contravention of Plan and removal of encroachment etc. are governed by a different procedure and steps which would remain uneffected by such compounding. In other words, the compounding under the Act, 1973 is to avoid the criminal liability and punishment on conviction but not to regularise a construction prohibited under the Act for which no relaxation is permissible except when the plan is amended in accordance with Section 13 of the Act. 38. In the garb of compounding, a resolution of authority or Development Authority itself will not cure the patent defect going to the root of the matter and an illegality will not stand cured and legal with the consent of LDA, since, the statute provides a particular procedure and nothing can be done in a manner other then the procedure prescribed in the statute. 39. When law requires something to be done in a particular manner, things done otherwise are prohibited. This principle was recognized in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and, thereafter it has been reiterated and followed consistently by the Apex Court in a catena of judgements, which I do not propose to refer all but would like to refer a few recent one. This principle was recognized in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and, thereafter it has been reiterated and followed consistently by the Apex Court in a catena of judgements, which I do not propose to refer all but would like to refer a few recent one. 40. In Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2001 (4) SCC 9 , in para 23 of the judgment the Court held : “It is a settled principle of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 41. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, 2002 (1) SCC 633 , it was held : “It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself.” 42. The judgments in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) and Dhananjaya Reddy (supra) laying down the aforesaid principle have been followed in Captain Sube Singh and others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, 2004 (6) SCC 440 . 43. In Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others, 2005 (13) SCC 477 , it was held : “It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given its due meaning.” 44. In State of Jharkhand and others v. Ambay Cements and another, 2005 (1) SCC 368 , in para 26 of the judgment, the Court held : “It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.” 45. The cumulative effect of various provisions of Statute shows that before finalizsing a Master Plan, the competent authority shall take all such steps which would include an opportunity to the residents of area concerned and others to submit their suggestions, objections, claims etc. and thereafter it shall be finalized. Once the “Master Plan” is finalised and submitted to Government and notified, thereafter its sanctity cannot be whittled down in a routine, casual and whimsical manner. and thereafter it shall be finalized. Once the “Master Plan” is finalised and submitted to Government and notified, thereafter its sanctity cannot be whittled down in a routine, casual and whimsical manner. The statute imposes an embargo against any action which is not consistent with the plan. However in a changing Society, a status quo for all times to come may not be countenanced. An elbow space thus has to be provided which may authorize the competent Authority/body concerned, in a very very limited manner, to make minor deviations to suit the changes. This has been done vide Section 13(1) of Act, 1973. Then the State Government has been empowered to alter the plan. However before doing so, again a well considered but a bit cumbersome procedure has been provided which entitles the residents and others also to have their say if they so desire. All these checks and measures are part of the statute to show that an approved plan has to be adhered as a rule and its deviation as a rarity. The authorities on their own, as and when they like, in a sheer administrative indiscreet manner, cannot clothe upon themselves such power. They, on their own, cannot authoritatively say that a particular change will not substantially alter the Plan or that such alternation can be or should be made. 46. Violation of Plan not only attracts a criminal liability but there are civil consequences also. The Authority has been empowered and is also under an obligation to make the things right by removing such violation/deviation and restoring the Plan in its notified state. The basic object of Authority is development and not destruction or devastation or diminution of an otherwise development, already made. 47. A deviation or violation of a Scheme or Plan cannot be made a means of profiteering by collecting huge amount from offenders/violators and permitting them to continue to enjoy such deviation. If this stand is sustained, it would mean that the Statute is being read in a manner so as to confer an immunity upon the resourceful people to violate law and permit them to continue to enjoy such violation for all times to come by paying some amount to the authority. These violators basically come from elite class. They find it easier vis-a-vis their status to part away any amount of money so as to retain resultant deviation of plan. These violators basically come from elite class. They find it easier vis-a-vis their status to part away any amount of money so as to retain resultant deviation of plan. It adds to their status also. Most of the builders have made it a part of their business. Simultaneously the development authority also stand financially (officially and privately) benefited in allowing contravention of plan and violation of a statutory embargo without exercising its power of restoration by taking action of demolition etc. If such an interpretation is upheld, it would not only encourage corruption and element of extraneous consideration but would also create two classes; one those who are bound to suffer in their efforts of making any deviation from Master Plan since they lack financial resources to pay the so called compounding fees for continuing to enjoy the illegal and unlawful deviation; and, those who are rich, resourceful and capable to do so. While making certain observations in respect to corruption prevailing in the Society, this Court in Smt. Mithilesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ADJ 40 , has observed that such creation and classification which encourages corruption, is discriminatory and also against human rights. The Court observes as under: “39. In the last 60 years of independence, if there is one field we can boast of a national allround development and that too multifold, it is the field of corruption. It has various shades. It is not confined to only one field of bribery, cash and kind, but has different colours and nuances. 53. Though in a civilised society, corruption has always been viewed with particular distaste to be condemned and criticised by everybody but still one loves to engage himself in it if finds opportunity, ordinarily, since it is difficult to resist temptation. It is often, a kind, parallel to the word ‘bribery’, meaning whereof in the context of the politicians or bureaucrats, induced to become corrupt. The Greek Philosopher Plato, in 4th Century BC said, “in the Republic that only politicians who gain no personal advantage from the policies they pursued would be fit to govern. It is often, a kind, parallel to the word ‘bribery’, meaning whereof in the context of the politicians or bureaucrats, induced to become corrupt. The Greek Philosopher Plato, in 4th Century BC said, “in the Republic that only politicians who gain no personal advantage from the policies they pursued would be fit to govern. This is recognised also in the aphorism that those who want to hold power are most likely those least fit to do so.” While giving speech before the House of Lords William Pitt in the later half of 18th Century said, “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Lord Acton in his letter addressed to Bishop Creighton is now one of the famous quotation, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 54. Corruption is a term known to all of us. Precise meaning is illegal, immoral or unauthorised act done in due course of employment but literally it means “inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by committing a felony).” It is an specially pernicious form of discrimination. Apparently its purpose is to seek favourable, privileged treatment from those who are in authority. No one would indulge in corruption at all if those who are in authority, discharge their service by treating all equally. 55. We can look into it from another angle. Corruption also violates human rights. It discriminates against the poor by denying them access to public services and preventing from exercising their political rights on account of their incapability of indulging in corruption, of course on account of poverty and other similar related factors. Corruption is, therefore, divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. It undermines respect for authority and increases cynicism. It discourages participation of individuals in civilised society and elevates self interest as a guide to conduct. In social terms we can say that corruption develops a range bound field of behaviour, attitude and beliefs. Corruption is antithesis of good governance and democratic politics. It is said, that when corruption is pervasive, it permeates every aspect of people’s lives. It can affect the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. If we go further, we can give some terminology also to different shades of corruption like, financial corruption, cultural corruption, moral corruption, idealogical corruption etc. It is said, that when corruption is pervasive, it permeates every aspect of people’s lives. It can affect the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. If we go further, we can give some terminology also to different shades of corruption like, financial corruption, cultural corruption, moral corruption, idealogical corruption etc. The fact remains that from whatever angle we look into it, the ultimate result borne out is that, and the real impact of corruption is, the poor suffers most, the poverty groves darker, and rich become richer.” 48. This Court is of the view that a perusal of Act, 1973 shows that except those cases which are covered by proviso to Section 16, there is a complete embargo against deviation from a plan. The use of land or building which is not in conformity with such plan is totally prohibited. It is also a criminal offence under Section 26 of Act, 1973. In fact when there is a case of unlawful encroachment or obstruction, even those who are responsible for preventing such encroachment or obstruction, if failed to do so, are also liable for criminal prosecution and punishment under Section 26-D of Act, 1973. Section 32 providing composition of offences is only in respect to criminal liability but not to retain contravention of plan which is prohibited by Section 16. That contravention if continues will have to face legal consequences. The only saving clause one can read is Section 13 whereby a change in plan can be approved by State Government and if that has been done the situation may be different, otherwise the embargo is complete. 49. The reason for making an approved plan sacrosanct and not to be touched easily is very evident. In the developed countries a lot of emphasis is on the planned development of cities and urban areas. In fact there the dividing line in the urban and rural areas is getting obliterated and one can say that every kind of local body is supposed to proceed with an objective of planned development. The object of planned development can be achieved by rigorous enforcement of plans prepared after careful study of intricate issues of city management, scientific research, rationalisation of loss and other issues. The object of planned development can be achieved by rigorous enforcement of plans prepared after careful study of intricate issues of city management, scientific research, rationalisation of loss and other issues. The people of developed countries have successfully achieved the objective of planned development contributing largely by strictly adhering to plans, local laws and other directions including restrictions necessary for effective implementation of such plans. They respect the laws enacted by legislature for regulating planned development of cities. One finds seldom complaint of violation of master plan etc. in construction of building; residential, institutional or commercial. 50. Unfortunately, the developing countries are example of depicting a scenario substantially different. This includes India and in particular certain northern States like State of Uttar Pradesh. These are example of blatant and scant respect to master plans and the laws relating thereto. The competent legislature though has enacted laws with pious objective of planned development in the cities and area governed by local bodies but the enforcing machinery is extremely negligent and casual. They work hand in gloves with violators. The violators, i.e., the beneficiaries of direct violation of plans and the authorities responsible for restricting such violation both work with a sense of immunity from any consequential act. 51. Reflecting similar ethos, the Apex Court in Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others, 2009(15) SCC 705 , has said in paragraph Nos. 74 and 75 as under: “74. In last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. Economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the State have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls etc. in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans and even the sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan etc. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan etc. and those who directly or indirectly abet such violations are totally unmindful of the grave consequences of their actions and/or omissions on the present as well as future generations of the country which will be forced to live in unplanned cities and urban areas. The people belonging to this class do not realise that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads. The pollution caused due to traffic congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air-conditioned cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorized constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings etc.” “75. Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by the this Court and High Courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and other similar laws, as also the master plans, zonal development plans, sanctioned plans etc., have received encouragement and support from the State apparatus. As and when the Courts have passed orders or the officers of local and other bodies have taken action for ensuring rigorous compliance of laws relating to planned development of the cities and urban areas and issued directions for demolition of the illegal/unauthorised constructions, those in power have come forward to protect the wrong doers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularization of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the name of compassion and hardship. Such actions have done irreparable harm to the concept of planned development of the cities and urban areas. It is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and stop their support to the lobbies of affluent class of builders and others, else even the rural areas of the country will soon witness similar chaotic conditions.” 52. These very observations have been reiterated and approved in a subsequent decision in Sanjay Adlakha v. State of Haryana, 2011(6) SCALE 419. 53. Time and again the Courts have observed that contravention of statute, violation of statutory plans and schemes, illegal and unauthorised encroachment, obstruction and illegal construction would never pay and this is also against the interest of Society at large but unfortunately the violators and the officials of local bodies and development authorities responsible for implementation of statute and statutory plans have enjoyed pleasure in more violation than its observance. This has filled rather the coffer of individual officials substantially instead of benefiting the State exchequer. A source of parallel economy commonly known as “black money” has developed which is running unabatedly under the shield provided by the beneficiaries of both the sides, i.e., the public as well as the State. Today it is an open secret that Reality Sector is thriving basically on underhand economy. The apparent finances are like an iceberg comparing the real quantum of money involved. Moreover, the concerted unholy nexus between Reality Sector and Officials cause real loss and detriment to innocent individual who abide law honestly. 54. In Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Assam and others, JT 2009 (14) SC 654, the Court observed: “It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. 54. In Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Assam and others, JT 2009 (14) SC 654, the Court observed: “It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multi-storeyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the Builder.” 55. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, JT 2006(2) SC 448, the Court expressed its anguish against mass violation of master plans and total inaction on the part of authorities responsible to execute it and said: “. . . . . this Court cannot remain a mute spectator when the violations also affect the environment and healthy living of law-abiders. The enormity of the problem which, to a great extent, is the doing of the authorities themselves, does not mean that a beginning should not be made to set things right. If the entire misuser cannot be stopped at one point of time because of its extensive nature, then it has to be stopped in a phased manner, beginning with major violators. There has to be a will to do it. . . . . . . .The things cannot be permitted to go on in this manner forever. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also to tackle the problem of existing unauthorised constructions and misuses and, on the other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having any respect and regard for law and other citizens.” 56. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also to tackle the problem of existing unauthorised constructions and misuses and, on the other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having any respect and regard for law and other citizens.” 56. The Courts have appreciated that a lot of technical, scientific and other concepts put forth in preparing a master plan for a coordinated systematic development of an area considering multifold aspects including the past, present and future requirement/objective/purpose etc. They also take care of environment including flora and fauna. The maintenance of greenery is an integral necessity of a planned development for the purpose of maintaining healthy environment. Its importance cannot be undermined. It is for this reason, in every plan, special attention is paid for open land, greenery, that is called green belt, parks, gardens etc. But, then, after approval of plan, when actual execution comes, the first casualty is the area contemplated as open space, green belt, parks etc. Everybody want to curtail such area by encroaching it, obstructing it, making unauthorised construction etc. It appears that a competition is going on and there is struggle of victory to the more resourceful one. It goes without saying that this competition is equally participated by officials for reasons other than bona fide. In other words, this Court has no hesitation in observing that an over all continuous increasing corruption one can see in development authorities where the development authorities have changed the meaning of “development authority” and read the words as if it amounts to development of officials of authorities. That being so, here come the authority of Courts to check, stop and put the things right. 57. In D.D. Vyas v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, AIR 1993 All 57 , this Court considered Section 13 and power of authority to make changes in plan and in paras 19 and 22 said as under: “19. . . . . . . . From Section 13(1), it is manifest that the authority may make only those amendments which do not affect material alterations in the character of the plan. It means the respondents do not have an absolute right of amending the master plan or the zonal development plan. . . . . . . . From Section 13(1), it is manifest that the authority may make only those amendments which do not affect material alterations in the character of the plan. It means the respondents do not have an absolute right of amending the master plan or the zonal development plan. The basic characteristic of such a plan cannot be altered by the authority. Only that amendment is permissible under Section 13(1) which does not affect the basic character of the plan. ...” 22. ... the Authority cannot amend the plan under Section 13(1) so as to deprive the public of a public park. Not only the G.D.A. even the State Government cannot alter the plan under Section 13(1) carries several limitations, Section 13(2) gives the State Government unlimited powers to make amendments in the plan of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise. ...” (emphasis added) 58. Striking heavily against unauthorised constructions, in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Shahu and others, AIR 1999 SC 2468 , it was said that the Courts while implementing rule of law show no consideration to the builders or any other person responsible for unauthorised construction etc. Being illegal it cannot be compounded and has to be demolished. The judicial discretion which includes equitable extraordinary exercise of power would not include a discretion to be exercised to encourage illegality or something which would perpetuate illegality. Justice must be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar discretion. The Court clearly said: “Judicial discretion whenever it is requires to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principle.” 59. Where the authorities are not performing their statutory functions, indulging more in violation than maintenance of rule of law, overlooking, ignoring or omitting illegal activities of individuals, private or Governmental, as the case may be by doing acts in violation of statutory plans, the Court finds its duty, constitutional and legal both, to cause such authorities to come to task and execute rule of law strictly by issuing a writ of mandamus. 60. 60. In Mansukh Lal v. State of Gujarat, 1997 (7) SCC 622 , the Court said: “Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature.” 61. In the present case, as pleaded by petitioner, and, that too, with impunity, that he started construction without getting his map sanctioned and completed the same shows that no Officer of LDA inspected and intervened unauthorised and illegal construction at any point of time when the construction was going on. It must have taken sufficient long time. It cannot be doubted that the officials of LDA had completely failed to discharge their duties and, therefore, breached public confidence, reposed in them, about developing the area under jurisdiction of LDA, in the most beneficial, systematic and co-ordinated manner, as contemplated in the statute. This is not only a complete dereliction of duty but also a serious misconduct on the part of officials concerned and a total failure on the part of LDA also, as an institution, to check these illegal activities, well in time. The notice appears to have been issued only when construction had completed so that some kind of subsequent sympathy or compassion on the pretext of loss of public wealth may be inducted. It appears that a mutual back scratching and coordinated effort is going on amongst the officials of LDA so as to carry on these kind of activities continuously, frequently and regularly, and, that too, unabated and unchecked. No attempt appear to have been made by LDA as to who is the person responsible for such lapses, as a result whereof such illegal construction could undergo unabated and unchecked well in time. There is no attempt to fix accountability and take appropriate action. 62. All this demonstrate a patent illegal act on the part of a statutory body and its officials. Nothing serious has been done though violators have also committed an offence under Act, 1973. No attempt has been made to lodge any report for initiating criminal proceeding(s) against anybody. A system of mutual protection developed amongst the bureaucracy has shown its reflection in its true colour. This has unfortunately caused a reason of sufferance to an individual citizen who lacked might and resources to combat with the strength of State and its instrumentalities. No attempt has been made to lodge any report for initiating criminal proceeding(s) against anybody. A system of mutual protection developed amongst the bureaucracy has shown its reflection in its true colour. This has unfortunately caused a reason of sufferance to an individual citizen who lacked might and resources to combat with the strength of State and its instrumentalities. 63. The Development Authorities were constituted with an objective of coordinated development but the experience is that largely it has failed to achieve its objectives. The open areas in cities have been converted into jungles of concrete. The roads have turned into parking. One finds it very difficult to move conveniently even in the main commercial areas of cities. This kind of destruction and defacement is going on rampant even in the areas shown as residential. Commercial activities like coaching centres, nursing homes, banks, banquet halls etc. are being run in residential areas without any hindrance causing a different kind of harassment to local residents. It is a common feature in all cities in State of U.P. wherever a development authority has been created. In different media reports these bottlenecks have been reported time and again but the authorities do not find time or occasion to wake up and come in action to rescue the citizens by restoring conditions inconformity with master plans. Violations are causing personal impact on the officials of Development Authorities, confined to their individual development but contributing to under development of area concerned. One of the reason this Court would conceive of this situation is lack of transparency of actual individual development plan(s) submitted by individual contractors/builders etc. Those who want to raise construction, when their plans/maps etc. are approved by Development Authority if disclose such approved plan/map to the people at large, the construction if made in violation of approved plan, then the people at large would not find it difficult to raise their voice for want of appropriate information. Though under the Right to Information Act, people may go to seek information but here also all possible obstructions are created by authorities in providing these informations. The construction in deviation to approved plan is considered to be a matter of right. Though under the Right to Information Act, people may go to seek information but here also all possible obstructions are created by authorities in providing these informations. The construction in deviation to approved plan is considered to be a matter of right. Those making illegal construction/encroachment are confident of no complaint since common man has neither appropriate information nor resources in general to fight with such kind of persons and when detected, the violators find it their right to continue with it by asking for compounding. What kind of violation has been made and what is the stage of compounding is also not made known to public at large. This lack of information has also contributed a mushroom growth of illegal, unauthorised obstruction, construction, encroachment etc. all through, changing ultimately the entire plan to such an extent that one find it very difficult as to what was the actual plan approved and what one has actually got executed, after passage of time. 64. The information regarding development to be undertaken by individuals, whether Government or private, does not lead to opening a window permitting a peep into the privacy of anyone. In a civilised society everybody is entitled to make development on the land or accommodation possessed by him in accordance with law exercising rights available to him but such development cannot be made so as to disturb the general plan conceived by a statutory authority in accordance with statute as that would cause and bound to cause prejudice/detriment, in various ways to other residents in that area. It is bound to affect the amenities, benefits, facilities, natural and otherwise of the residents. A deviation for the benefit of an individual or a section cannot be allowed as that is essentially bound to cause some detrimental effect on the society at large even if the degree of detriment may be very small and sometimes microscopic. The reason being that even microscopic detriment, if caused by a substantial number of individuals/group of individuals, collectively may become a bigger one. 65. In order to find out whether a person in the neighbourhood has violated law, one should not be made to depend on the vagaries and indiscreet whims of development authorities and other local bodies. The reason being that even microscopic detriment, if caused by a substantial number of individuals/group of individuals, collectively may become a bigger one. 65. In order to find out whether a person in the neighbourhood has violated law, one should not be made to depend on the vagaries and indiscreet whims of development authorities and other local bodies. There should be a system where this information must be available maintaining a total transparency so that whenever there is a deviation causing detriment to residents and/or the society in general, appropriate steps be taken to check it, without first getting harassed in collecting information and exhausting entire energy disheartening the person(s) concerned in pursuing the matter further and before the appropriate Forum. A time has come when concerted effort must be shown by authorities as well as the individuals and society in general to ensure execution and implementation of a plan in strictest manner deterring the violators from such deviation, if any, with a fear of serious consequences. 66. This Court finds its constitutional obligation and duty to make these observations having come across the flagrant violation of statute on the part of both the parties in the case in hand, and, that too, without resorting to accountability and responsibility of the Officers of the statutory body. The attempt of violator in being benefited from persistent and frequent violation of the statute. Time has come when State Government and LDA should look into the matter and take appropriate steps in the following manner: (i) LDA is directed to ensure implementation of master plan and zonal development plan etc. strictly in accordance with one as approved under the statute and no change, alternation, amendment be allowed therein except in accordance with procedure prescribed in Act, 1973 and in particular Section 13 thereof. (ii) The LDA shall put on its website every sanctioned plan(s)/map(s) etc. of any development/construction in the area under its operation, submitted by any individual, Corporate body, Government or its instrumentalities etc., approved on and after 1.1.2000 till date and henceforth. In respect to sanctioned plan of city etc., the same shall also be placed on website. In respect to individual plan(s)/map(s), as above, which shall include colonies, townships etc., the sanctioned plan(s)/map(s) etc. In respect to sanctioned plan of city etc., the same shall also be placed on website. In respect to individual plan(s)/map(s), as above, which shall include colonies, townships etc., the sanctioned plan(s)/map(s) etc. shall be placed on website wherever the area of land is 200 square meters and above; or the building constructed and owned by an individual for his own use, but is three storied and above. In case there is any data problem in a single website, the LDA may open more sites localitywise etc., as advised technically. (iii) If any developer, builder, contractor, individual or corporate or Government etc., as the case may be, has violated sanctioned plan/map and has applied for compounding, the kind of violation and the order passed by LDA compounding the said violation, if any, the reasons for the same and the procedure followed therein shall also be made known to the public at large by giving details on the website, as directed above. (iv) The LDA shall also give details of officers responsible for sanction, inspection, enforcement and approval of plan/map, the actual execution thereof and implementation of plan in respect to respective areas and the officers who remained posted since 1.1.2000 and onwards in respect to above work and their period of function shall also be let known to public at large. (v) A High Powered Committee shall also be constituted in LDA headed by a retired judicial officer, not below the rank of District Judge, to find out yearwise deviation in the implementation of plan who shall submit its periodical report every fortnight to LDA and it shall then be the responsibility of LDA through its Vice Chairman and Secretary to seek remedial steps in the light of report received and remove illegal encroachment, obstruction, construction etc. without any further delay. (vi) The LDA will also specify and shall make it known to public at large by placing relevant information on website as to which particular area is reserved and for what purpose and the activities which are not permissible to be carried out therein. (vii) In addition to what has been said above, in the next six months from today, the LDA shall find out the activities which are/were not permissible in a particular area but are/have being carried out; and shall immediately take steps for stopping/removing those activities. (vii) In addition to what has been said above, in the next six months from today, the LDA shall find out the activities which are/were not permissible in a particular area but are/have being carried out; and shall immediately take steps for stopping/removing those activities. All subsequent requisite steps necessary to check unauthorised use or enjoyment etc. by anyone shall also be taken forthwith. (viii) The Principal Secretary/Secretary, Urban Development, U.P. is directed to look into this matter and appropriate instructions, if necessary, by issuing a Government Order, be given to all other Development Authorities in the State of U.P. to follow steps as directed above. The Principal Secretary shall issue necessary instructions within two months from today and shall also lay down a time table for all Development Authorities to take appropriate steps, as directed above herein. (ix) A High Powered Committee at the level of the Government shall also be constituted to find out as to how many violations in different Development Authorities which constitute an offence under Section 26 and 26-D have been committed and whether any criminal prosecution has been initiated against the guilty in the past decade, i.e., from 1.1.2000 and onwards. If not, who are the persons responsible for such lapses. The Committee, as directed above, shall be constituted within 15 days from today and it shall submit its first report in six months after its constitution to the Court. 67. In the ultimate conclusion, I find no reason or justification, legal or otherwise, to interfere with the impugned orders. 68. Subject to aforesaid directions/observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 69. The Registrar General/Registrar is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to Chief Secretary, U.P. Lucknow and Principal Secretary/Secretary, Urban Development, Lucknow, forthwith for information and compliance. 70. No costs. ——————