ORDER : D.N. Patel, J.: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1760 of 2007 dated 13th April, 2007 whereby, the writ petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed. 2. Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the Master Plan plot no. 1786/A2, Khata no. 231 of village Argora was kept under reservation as “Public Open Space”. Master Plan was brought into effect in the year 1983. This was a revised Master Plan. The said revised plan was only for 20 years as per Annexure6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This 20 years period has already been over and therefore, this appellant (original petitioner) has constructed embedded oil tank, for further construction of petrol pump at the plot. Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi has passed an order to remove the construction of oil-tank. 3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as there is no reservation of the plot in question and as this is not a development of plot at all the order passed by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, which is at Annexure7 dated 15th June, 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside and therefore, the subsequent orders passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2005 by the Appellate Tribunal dated 14th July, 2005 also deserves to be quashed and set aside. Similarly, the Revisional Authority, Commissioner of South Chotanagpur in revisional application being Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 2005, dismissed the revisional application preferred by this appellant. The said order should also be quashed and set aside mainly for the reason that there is no reservation now in existence. Moreover the construction put by this appellant is not a development of the plot at all. 4. Counsel for the appellant is relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 11 SCC 222 , (2007) 8 SCC 705 and (2007) 7 SCC 555 . On the basis of the aforesaid decision to be read with sub section 2 of Section 29 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001, if the land in question is not acquired within a period of six months from the commencement of the Master Plan, the reservation as “Public Open Space” cannot be continued. On the basis of the aforesaid decision to be read with sub section 2 of Section 29 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001, if the land in question is not acquired within a period of six months from the commencement of the Master Plan, the reservation as “Public Open Space” cannot be continued. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the authorities below the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2001” for the sake of brevity) as well as not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the orders passed by the Authority below the Act, 2001 as well as by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1760 of 2007 dated 13th April, 2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the plot in question bearing plot no. 1786/A2, Khata No. 231 of village Argora, district-Ranchi was put under reservation for the purpose of “Public Open Space” in pursuance of Section 19 of the Act, 2001, in a revised Master Plan brought into force from the year 1983. Without obtaining any required permission for the development and in breach of Section 35 of the Act, 2001, the plot in question was developed. This was noticed by the concerned officer of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. A report was made by him about the nature of unauthorized development of the plot in question. The said report is annexed to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal. On the basis of the report given by the concerned officer of Ranchi Regional Development Authority, notice was given to this appellant (original petitioner) and ultimately, an order was passed at Annexure7 dated 15.06.2005 by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority. The said order passed by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority reveals that that there is unauthorized development of the property in question and hence, it was ordered to be removed. This order was challenged by way of an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, 2001 before the Appellate Tribunal bearing Misc. Appeal no. 1 of 2005. The appeal preferred by this appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14th July, 2005. This order was again challenged by way of revisional application being Misc. This order was challenged by way of an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, 2001 before the Appellate Tribunal bearing Misc. Appeal no. 1 of 2005. The appeal preferred by this appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 14th July, 2005. This order was again challenged by way of revisional application being Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 2005 before the Commissioner of South Chotanagpur, which was also dismissed by the said authority vide order dated 6th March, 2006. Thus, against the concurrent findings of Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, the Appellate Tribunal and Revisional Authority, this appellant preferred W.P.(C) No. 1760 of 2007 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13th April, 2007 and therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this concurrent findings by the authority under the Act, 2001 may not be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court mainly for the reason that the plot in question has been unauthorisedly developed which is in violation of Section 35 of the Act, 2001 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may be dismissed. Reasons: 6. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present appellant is original petitioner who had preferred W.P. (C) No. 1760 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13th April, 2007. In this writ petition, the orders passed under the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act, 2001 by various authorities, viz. Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority dated 15th June, 2005 was under challenge, thereafter, the Appellate Authority order which was passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2005 dated 14th July, 2005 was under challenge as well as the order passed by the revisional authority namely, Commissioner of South Chotanagpur in Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 2005 dated 6th March, 2006 was under challenge. All these authorities under Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act have dismissed the claim of this appellant. Against these concurrent findings of the facts, the writ petition was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. All these authorities under Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act have dismissed the claim of this appellant. Against these concurrent findings of the facts, the writ petition was preferred which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. (ii) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the plot in question upon which there is unauthorized construction is bearing plot no. 1786/A2, Khata no. 231 of village Argora, District Ranchi. This plot falls within the “Public Open Space” of green land and no construction can be sanctioned. Any construction without sanction of Ranchi Regional Development Authority is illegal. There is a revised Master Plan applicable to this area which has been commenced from 1983 and as per the Master Plan the plot in question falls within “Public Open Space”. (iii) It appears that as per the Master Plan, plot in question is reserved for “Public Open Space” and construction has been made by this appellant which is embedded oil tank which is made for further construction of petrol pump. (iv) Admittedly, there is no sanction of map by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for the development of the plot made by this appellant. (v) Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as the oil tank is embedded below the ground at the plot in question, there is no development of the plot at all as per Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act. We do not agree with this contention. Any construction made below the earth is also a development of the plot. There is no need of bricks, cement and steel for the development of the plot. Even a readymade water tank is fixed below the earth or any oil tank is embedded in the plot below the earth for the purpose of further construction of the petrol pump is also a development of the plot. Argument canvassed that the oil tank is embedded below the earth therefore, it is not a development of the plot at all, is without any merit. It is a duty of the development authority that any such type of development of the plot must be regulated especially when it is a oil tank because it has its own hazards. Oil tank cannot be embedded without permission of the authority. It is a duty of the development authority that any such type of development of the plot must be regulated especially when it is a oil tank because it has its own hazards. Oil tank cannot be embedded without permission of the authority. Very wide are the ramifications and therefore, it cannot be said that when any oil tank is embedded below the earth it does not tantamount to a development of the plot at all. Section 35 of the Jharkhand Regional Development Authority Act reads as under: “35. Prohibition to building without sanction. No person shall erect or commence to erect any building, or make any addition or alteration to any building except with the previous sanction of the Vice-Chairman, and in accordance with the provision of this Chapter and the regulations made under this Act; Provided that the Authority may make separate set of Regulations for different areas or different kinds of areas.” As per the aforesaid Section no person can erect or commence to erect any building except with the previous sanction of the Vice Chairman of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority. (vi) Section 2(c) (d) (g) of the Act, 2001 reads as under: “(c) 'building' includes any structure or part of a structure which is intended to be used for residential, industrial, commercial or other purposes whether in actual use or not, and compound wall or fencing thereof; (d) 'building operation' includes erection or re-erection of a building, or any part thereof, roofing or re-roofing of any part of a building, or of any open space, any material alteration or enlargement of a building, any such alteration of a building as is likely to affect an alteration of its drainages or sanitary arrangements or materially affect its security, or the construction of a door opening or any street or land not belonging to the owner. (g) 'development' with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in or over or under land or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes redevelopment and layout and subdivision of any land and 'to develop' shall be construed accordingly; (Emphasis Supplied) Looking to definition of “building” it is inclusive definition. Oil tank is also a building. Likewise “building operation” is also an inclusive definition. Embedding of readymade water or oil tank is also a building operation. Oil tank is also a building. Likewise “building operation” is also an inclusive definition. Embedding of readymade water or oil tank is also a building operation. Looking to definition of “development” it includes building operation under the land. Therefore, embedding readymade oil tank below the earth is a development of the plot. Without prior permission of the Ranchi Regional Development Authority this type of development will be termed as illegal development and therefore, no error has been committed by the Vice Chairman of Ranchi Regional Development Authority in passing the order dated 15th June, 2005 and consequently, no error has been committed by the Appellate Authority in dismissing the Misc. Appeal no. 1 of 2005 vide order dated 14th July, 2005 and also no error has been committed by the Revisional Authority Commissioner of South Chotanagpur while dismissing the revisional application being Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 2005 dated 6th March, 2006 and we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1760 of 2007 dated 13th April, 2007. (vii) It has been argued out about the enforcement of the Master Plan because the plot in question is reserved as “Public Open Space” and it has been submitted vehemently by the counsel for the appellant that the plot in question has not been acquired as per sub Section 2 of Section 29 of the Act, 2001 and hence, the holder or purchaser of the plot can develop the property in the manner under which it was provided under the Act, 2001. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the plot in question is reserved for “Public Open Space”. It was not upon the plot holder to develop the plot as per his own whims and capricious. It ought to be developed in consonance with the Master Plan. If the holder of the plot or the purchaser of the plot is aggrieved after certain years he ought to have been given a notice to the government. Normally this capping period is 20 years, e.g. in Gujarat Town Planning Act. So far as the present Act applicable in the State of Jharkhand is concerned, there is no such capping period prescribed by the law at all. Normally this capping period is 20 years, e.g. in Gujarat Town Planning Act. So far as the present Act applicable in the State of Jharkhand is concerned, there is no such capping period prescribed by the law at all. Nonetheless, looking to Annexure6 of the Letters Patent Appeal, there is reference of life of Master Plan for 20 years. Thus, the communication which is at Annexure6 is the only communication which gives cap of 20 years to the existence of the Master Plan as submitted by the counsels for both the sides. Counsel for both the sides are unable to contradict the fact what is stated in Annexure6. Even assuming without admitting that the life of the Master Plan is 20 years then also automatically reservation does not come to an end. There ought to have been a notice by the plot holder or by the purchaser of the plot upon which there is a restriction on the development of the plot. This reservation is in pursuance of Section 19 and 23 of the Act, 2001. These restrictions, e.g. if the plot is reserved for school, garden, commercial complex etc. is must in a Master Plan then development otherwise than this purpose is always prohibited under Section 23 of the Act, 2001. For ready reference Section 19 and 23 of the Act reads as under: “19. These restrictions, e.g. if the plot is reserved for school, garden, commercial complex etc. is must in a Master Plan then development otherwise than this purpose is always prohibited under Section 23 of the Act, 2001. For ready reference Section 19 and 23 of the Act reads as under: “19. Preparation of Zonal Development Plan.(1) Simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Plan or as soon thereafter as may be, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each of the zones into which the development areas 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 things a public building and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools, hospitals, public and private open space and other categories of public and private uses; (b) specify the standards of population, density and building density and other norms if required; (c) show every area in the zone which may, in the opinion of the Authority, be required for development or redevelopment; 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 or 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 on 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 erected 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 the creation of building and the person or institution by whom or at whose expence such amenities are to be provided; (ix) the prohibitions or restrictions regarding erection of shops, workshops, warehouses or factories or buildings designed for particular purposes in the locality; (x) the maintenance of walls, fences, hedges or any other structural constructions and the height at which they shall be maintained; (xi) the restrictions regrading the use of any site for purposes other than erection of buildings; and (xii) any other matter which is necessary for the proper development of the zone or any area thereof according to plan and for preventing buildings being erected haphazardly in such zone or area. 23. Restriction on charge of use of land or development thereof: (1) No person shall on or after the publication of a draft plan institute, or charge the use of any land covered by the Plan for any purpose other than agriculture, or carry out any development in respect of any such land without the previous permission in writing of the authority. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the permission referred to in subsection (1) shall not be granted otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of the Plan.” (Emphasis Supplied) (viii) Thus, in view of these provisions during the existence of the Master Plan, the development of the plot in question, for the purposes, other than what is specified in the Master Plan is prohibited and even if, the life of the Master Plan is over then also automatically reservation never comes to an end. There ought to have notice by the plot holder or owner of the plot to the government. There ought to be: (a) a notice by the holder of the plot or by the owner of the plot to the government for his intention to develop the plot for the purposes other than what is specified in the Master Plan; (b) after receiving the notice it is a duty of the government either to acquire the land or if the land is not acquired there shall be de-reservation. (c) if the government opts for acquisition of the land there is a prescribed method for acquisition of the land under the laws prevailing in the area and in accordance with law the land can be acquired by the government within the stipulated time. The process of acquisition of land should start within six months as per Section 29 of the Act, 2001. For the ready reference Section 29 of the Act reads as under: “29. Acquisition of land for purposes of this Act. The process of acquisition of land should start within six months as per Section 29 of the Act, 2001. For the ready reference Section 29 of the Act reads as under: “29. Acquisition of land for purposes of this Act. (1) The State Government may acquire land for purposes of this Act by compulsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894): (2) If the State Government failed to acquire the land within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the notice, the Master Plan or, as the case may be, the Zonal Development plan or the Regional plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not required to be kept as an open space or un-built upon or were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.” (Emphasis Supplied) (d) if the proceedings for acquisition of land is not started by the government within the stipulated time, after receipt of the notice from holder of the plot or from the owner of the plot, the reservation of the plot as per Master Plan comes to an end and now holder of the plot or purchaser of the plot can develop his plot in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2001. (e) once there is a de-reservation of the plot in question as stated hereinabove then also the provisions of the Act, 2001 and building byelaws, for development of the plot are applicable. In fact, even if there is de-reservation, the plans for development of the plot, ought to be placed before Ranchi Regional Development Authority or before the competent authority and after getting sanction of the plan for development of the plot the said plot can be developed. (ix) In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 2001 assuming without admitting that the Master Plan comes to an end by virtue of the efflux of time (even though there is no such capping period given under the Act, 2001 except Annexure6 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) then also in a haphazard manner, without getting any sanction from the competent authority, there cannot be a development of the plot by the holder of the plot or by the owner of the plot or by the purchaser of the plot. Even if the Master Plan comes to an end the plot holder, has to apply for the development of the plot. There ought to be sanction or approval for the development of the plot and thereafter only the plot can be developed otherwise, there is a clear breach of Section 35 of the Act, 2001. If the Master Plan is in existence and such construction is made then there will be violation of two Sections viz. Section 23 as well as Section 35 of the Act, 2001. (x) Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no breach of Section 23 and there is also no breach of Section 35 of the Act, 2001. We are not in accordance with this argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant. Here, there is breach of both the Sections of the Act, 2001 because assuming without admitting that the Master Plan life comes to an end then also as no notice was given by the plot holder for de-reservation or showing his intention to develop the plot for the purpose or otherwise then what is mentioned in a Master Plan. Automatically reservation never comes to an end therefore, there is breach of Section 23 of the Act, 2001 and as the plan of development were never placed before the competent authority and as the plan was never sanctioned for the development of the plot in question and the oil tank is embedded under the plot in question without any permission this tantamounts to illegal development of the plot in question. Therefore, there is violation of Section 35 of the Act, 2001. The appellant has presumed that the reservation comes to an end and for the oil tank to be embedded in the plot there is no need of anybody permission. This presumption on the part of this appellant is dehors the law. (xi) Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated hereinabove. None of the decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant are helpful to this appellant looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case because as stated hereinabove. There is no automatic de-reservation without giving any notice by the holder of the plot and therefore, there is breach of Section 23 of the Act, 2001. None of the decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant are helpful to this appellant looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case because as stated hereinabove. There is no automatic de-reservation without giving any notice by the holder of the plot and therefore, there is breach of Section 23 of the Act, 2001. Moreover, the development of the plot in question has been made by this appellant is also without permission of the competent authority under the Act and as such, there is breach of Section 35 of the Act, 2001. These two facts make the present case different from the facts of the cases cited by the counsel for the appellant. Hence, those judgments are of no help to the appellant. (xii) Counsel appearing for the Authority has relied upon the decision reported in 1995(1) PLJR 418 . In the aforesaid decision, it has been decided by the Division Bench of the Court that even if the plan is sanctioned, but, if it is not in consonance with the Master Plan the development of the plot in question is illegal. The facts of the present case is the worst than the facts stated in this decision because no such plan has ever been sanctioned in the Ranchi Regional Development Authority and unilaterally, the plot in question has been developed by this appellant and the most crucial organ of the petrol pump namely oil tank has been embedded in the plot in question. (xiii) Annexure5 letter written by the Authority to the Government for the dereservation is also not helpful to the appellant mainly for the reason that no notice given by the holder of the plot or by the purchaser of the plot in question. There ought to be a notice by the person who is holder of the plot. (xiv) Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in view of Section 29(2) of the Act, 2001, it is not necessary that the notice would be given by the plot holder. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that even after the lapse of the Master Plan, the reservation continues. To bring on an end the reservation there ought to be a notice from the holder or owner of the plot. 7. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that even after the lapse of the Master Plan, the reservation continues. To bring on an end the reservation there ought to be a notice from the holder or owner of the plot. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and we see no reason to take any deviation from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.