JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Ms. Sufia Saba, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over their land and construction in dispute and not to demolish their construction. (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the contesting respondent to start the development and betterment work in the disputed colony (Swaraj Nagar) immediately. (iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) award the costs of the petition to the petitioners.” 3. Petitioners (52 in numbers) have approached this Court claiming themselves to be the members of Motinagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as “Society”). The said Society is a registered Cooperative Housing Society under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1965”). Including petitioners there are about 450 members of Society. 4. Aim and object of Society is to acquire land, prepare layout plan for residential colonies, construction of buildings and also advance loans to members of Society on easy terms. 5. Society purchased agricultural Plots No. 1639-1644, 1646-1652, 1654-1985 at Village-Maswanpur alias Mohsanpur (Swaraj Nagar) Pargana, Tehsil & District Kanpur. The aforesaid land was within the operation area of Kanpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “KDA”), a body constituted under the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1973”). Hence, Society prepared a lay out development plan and submitted to KDA on 25.3.1980 for its approval/sanction. Executive Engineer (Planning), KDA informed Society vide letter dated 29.7.1987 that for regularization of lay out plan and to compute development charges, necessary steps are being taken. Society in the mean-time allotted plots to its members during 1981 to 1987 for construction of residential houses. Possession of respective plots to members handed over. Society also executed sale-deeds in favour of members of Society including petitioners. Members of Society after execution of sale-deeds and getting possession, submitted plans/maps for construction of their houses, to KDA for sanction. Society in the mean-time allotted plots to its members during 1981 to 1987 for construction of residential houses. Possession of respective plots to members handed over. Society also executed sale-deeds in favour of members of Society including petitioners. Members of Society after execution of sale-deeds and getting possession, submitted plans/maps for construction of their houses, to KDA for sanction. Petitioners have also stated in Para 9 of writ petition that they started construction of their houses; some were completed wherein petitioners started residing and some were under construction at the time of filing writ petition in 1991. 6. In May, 1991, Officials of Enforcement Staff of KDA visited disputed land and required petitioners to vacate it and to remove constructions as well as construction materials from the said land, else constructions shall be demolished. Petitioners met Secretary of Society, who informed that KDA has demanded betterment charges at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square meter where against Society filed objections. KDA rejected objections and did not approve plan submitted by Society. Thereafter, Society preferred an Appeal under Section 15 (5) of Act, 1973 before Commissioner/Chairman, KDA. 7. Executive Engineer, KDA issued demand letters in 1990, informing petitioners and other members of Society to deposit 25% of proportionate development costs, complete formalities for agreement with KDA and submit other documents of title etc. Petitioners deposited different amounts mentioned in Para 15 of writ petition with KDA on various dates. However, KDA on 1.6.1991 demolished boundary walls of petitioners No. 38, 41, 50 and 51. Challenging aforesaid action, this writ petition has been filed stating that action of KDA is totally unauthorized and illegal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and perusing record, we find that petitioners in fact are basically the persons who have raised unauthorized constructions and, that too, mostly on land, which belong to KDA, having been acquired in 1968 and attempt is to get their unauthorized illegal encroachments, constructions and possession over disputed land, regularized through Court. 9. Annexure 3 to writ petition, which is said to be a letter submitted by Secretary of Society to Chairman, KDA shows that a public notice was issued in Daily Newspapers “Dainik Jagran” and “Aaj” published on 31.3.1988 that Aaraji Nos. 1626, 1627, 1638-1669, 1672-1685, 1718 and 1719 belonged to KDA having been acquired in 1968, and Collector made Award No. 4165/69 dated 31.12.1968 for compensation. 1626, 1627, 1638-1669, 1672-1685, 1718 and 1719 belonged to KDA having been acquired in 1968, and Collector made Award No. 4165/69 dated 31.12.1968 for compensation. It appears that a writ petition bearing No. 4165 of 1969 was also filed, which was decided on 2.5.1978 in favour of KDA. 10. Office bearers of Society claimed to have checked/enquired only revenue records in exercise of “due diligence” to find out whether land in question belong to alleged erstwhile owners or not, and thereafter, proceeded to purchase the same. It is not their case that what is said in aforesaid representation is incorrect. In fact it is obviously correct since document belong to petitioners’ society. It is evident that Society is a subsequent purchaser of land, which was already acquired by State and having vested in State, Society in fact did not get any title whatsoever. Subsequent transactions being void and illegal, hence, did not confer any right upon petitioners, who have entered into alleged agreement by executing sale-deed with Society. 11. Further, it is also evident that Society and petitioners submitted their lay out plans and maps for sanction, to KDA, but no sanction was ever granted, still they proceeded to make constructions etc. This exercise was wholly illegal and unauthorized and such illegal constructions cannot be protected by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. This Court must not help a person, who himself has founded his claim on wrong acts, and patently illegal. This Court shall not restrain a statutory authority from exercising its lawful power, authority and duties under Act, 1973. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute that plan, development and construction of house etc. in the area within the jurisdiction of KDA is to be governed by provisions of Act, 1973 of Rules, Regulations and bye-laws framed thereunder. 13. It is also not disputed that neither plan submitted by Society was approved by KDA, at any point of time, nor individual maps of accommodation sought to be constructed by individual members of Society including petitioners, were sanctioned/approved by KDA. Just after submitting plans and maps for sanction, Society as well as individual members started their constructions etc. Apparently this act, on the part of petitioners and similarly placed others, was patently illegal and unauthorized. 14. Just after submitting plans and maps for sanction, Society as well as individual members started their constructions etc. Apparently this act, on the part of petitioners and similarly placed others, was patently illegal and unauthorized. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner then submitted that petitioner may be allowed to pay compounding charges and constructions raised by petitioner as also development of housing scheme by Society even if illegal, the same may be directed to be regularized by KDA. We require petitioners to show provision under which such regularization is permissible but nothing could be shown. 15. We have examined Act, 1973, Rules, Regulations and bye-laws framed there under. 16. We do not find any statutory provision in Act, 1973 permitting such compounding of wholly unauthorized illegal construction raised on a land, within the jurisdiction of a Development Authority constituted under Act, 1973 so as to protect and retain such construction. 17. It would be appropriate to consider certain provisions of Act, 1973 which talk 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. 18. 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.” 19. (3) The master plan may provide for any other matter which may be necessary for the proper development of the development area.” 19. 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. 20. Section 13 talks of amendment of plan. Section 16 prohibits use of land and building in contravention of plans. 21. 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. 22. 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”. 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) 23. (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) 23. 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. 24. A perusal of above provision shows that compliance of procedure is mandatory. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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.” (Emphasis added) 28. 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 petitioners that any such exemption is applicable in this case. 29. 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 petitioners that any such exemption is applicable in this case. 29. 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. 30. It may also be pointed out at this stage, where development is allowed to any person or body, such development shall also be consistent with the plan. 31. This Court finds no provision under the Act, 1973 which entitles the Authority to go for profiteering on an illegal act of encroachment or unauthorized 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 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 criminal liability fastened upon the person for committing an offence under 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 inoperable 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. 32. 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. 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, compounding under the Act, 1973 is to avoid criminal liability and punishment on conviction but not to regularize 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. 33. 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 KDA or any other development authority since statute provides a particular procedure and nothing can be done in a manner other then the procedure prescribed in the statute. 34. 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. 35. 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.” 36. 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.” 37. 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 . 38. 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 . 38. 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.” 39. 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.” 40. The cumulative effect of various provisions of Statute shows that before finalizing a Master Plan, 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 “Master Plan” is finalized 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. 41. 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. 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 is a rarity. The authorities on their own, as and when they like, in a sheer administrative indiscreet manner, cannot clothe upon themselves such power. 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 is 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. 42. 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 development already made. 43. 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. 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. 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 unauthorized 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. 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. 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.” 44. 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 provide composition of offences 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. Section 32 provide composition of offences 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, situation may be different, otherwise the embargo is complete. 45. 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 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, rationalization 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. There, one finds seldom complaint of violation of master plan etc. in construction of building; residential, institutional or commercial. 46. 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 i.e. the beneficiaries of direct violation of plans. The authorities responsible for restricting such violation and violators, both work with a sense of immunity from any consequential act. 47. Reflecting similar ethos, Court in Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others, 2009(15) SCC 705 , has said in paragraphs No. 74 and 75 as under: “74. In last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. 47. Reflecting similar ethos, Court in Shanti Sports Club and another v. Union of India and others, 2009(15) SCC 705 , has said in paragraphs No. 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 unauthorized 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 realize 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. 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/unauthorized 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 unauthorized 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.” (Emphasis added) 48. These very observations have been reiterated and approved in a subsequent decision in Sanjay Adlakha v. State of Haryana, 2011(6) SCALE 419. 49. These very observations have been reiterated and approved in a subsequent decision in Sanjay Adlakha v. State of Haryana, 2011(6) SCALE 419. 49. Time and again, 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 violators and 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 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. 50. In Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Assam and others, JT 2009 (14) SC 654, 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.” 51. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, JT 2006(2) SC 448, Court expressed its anguish against mass violation of master plans and total inaction on the part of authorities responsible to execute it and said: “. . . . . In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, JT 2006(2) SC 448, 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.” (Emphasis added) 52. 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. 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 comes the authority of Courts to check, stop and put the things right. 53. 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. 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) 54. 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 Courts while implementing rule of law must 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. 55. 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. Being illegal, it cannot be compounded and has to be demolished. 55. 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. Court said: “Judicial discretion whenever it is requires to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principle.” 56. Where 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, 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. 57. In Mansukh Lal v. State of Gujarat, 1997 (7) SCC 622 , 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.” 58. In the present case, as pleaded by petitioners, and, that too, with impunity, that they started construction without getting his map sanctioned and completed the same it also shows that no Officer of KDA inspected and intervened unauthorized and illegal construction at any point of time when construction was going on. It must have taken sufficient long time. It thus cannot be doubted that officials of KDA had completely failed to discharge their duties and, therefore, breached public confidence, reposed in them, about developing the area under jurisdiction of KDA, 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 KDA 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. 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 KDA 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 KDA as to find out who is the person responsible for such lapses, as a result whereof such illegal construction could undergo unabated and unchecked well in time, and take action against him/them. There is no attempt to fix accountability and take appropriate action. 59. 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 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. 60. Development Authorities were constituted with an objective of coordinated development but experience is that largely they have failed to achieve objectives. The open areas in cities have been converted into jungles of concrete. The roads have turned into parking. Water reservoirs/Ponds have disappeared. One finds it very difficult to move conveniently even in the main commercial areas of cities. 61. 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 authorities do not find time or occasion to wake up and come in action to rescue 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. 62. Violations are causing personal impact on the officials of Development Authorities, confined to their individual development but contributing to under development of area concerned. 62. 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. 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. 63. 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 amenities, benefits, facilities, natural and otherwise of the residents. It is bound to affect 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 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. 64. 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 statutory body. The attempt of violators is to be benefited from persistent and frequent violation of the statute. 65. Time has come when State Government and KDA should look into the matter and take appropriate steps in the following manner: (i) KDA must 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) KDA 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 1.1.2001 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. 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, KDA may open more sites localitywise etc., as advised technically. 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, KDA 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 KDA compounding the said violation, if any, the reasons for the same and the procedure followed therein shall also be made known to public at large, by giving details on the website, as directed above. (iv) KDA 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 officers who remained posted since 1.1.2001 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 KDA, headed by a retired judicial officer, not below the rank of District Judge, to find out yearwise deviation in implementation of plan who shall submit periodical report, every fortnight to KDA, and it shall then be responsibility of KDA, 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) KDA shall also specify and 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, KDA shall find out 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. All subsequent requisite steps necessary to check unauthorised use or enjoyment etc. by anyone shall also be taken forthwith. (viii) 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 Development Authorities in the State of U.P. to follow steps as directed above. Principal Secretary shall issue necessary instructions within two months from today and shall also lay down a time table for Development Authorities to take appropriate steps, as directed above herein. (ix) A High Powered Committee at the level of 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 guilty in the past decade, i.e., from 1.1.2001 and onwards. If not, who are the persons responsible for such lapses. The Committee, as directed above, shall be constituted within two months and it shall submit its first report in six months after its constitution to the Court. 66. In the ultimate conclusion, we find no ground entitling petitioners to seek relief, as prayed for. 67. Subject to aforesaid directions/observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 68. 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 and Vice Chairman, Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur forthwith for information and compliance. 69. No costs. ——————