ORDER SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. By an order dated 7.4.04, this court treated a letter received from Shri Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, a leading daily newspaper of the State, containing allegations related to gross violation of the Master Development Plan of Jaipur and other cities, accompanied by various news items published in the said newspaper, as a writ petition (PIL) and issued notices to the Chief Town Planner, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan. 2. On 20.1.05, a reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of the State taking the stand that the Master Plan prepared covers various essential land uses e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, Government and Semi-Government offices, Bus Stand, Transport Nagar, Common community facilities, Parks, Open spaces, Network of the Roads and also the Periphery Control Belt required to be developed for projected population. Regarding the allegations of deviation of Master Plans as raised in the letter petition, the respondents took specific stand as under: “(3) That so far as the allegation of the deviation as raised by the letter writ petition are concerned, the answering respondents humbly submit that some deviations are there and some are still taking place but then until and unless the general civics sense are developed in public at large and the public is made aware that the deviation of master plan is not in their interest, without the active cooperation of public at large, the answering respondents feel themselves not so happily equipped with the measure and means to control such deviation. (4) That the answering respondents humbly submit that though the master plan is prepared, notified yet it is common phenomena that 100% projected development plan can never be implemented. For the alleged deviation, the answering respondents alone should not be blamed. It is the public which has to ultimately implement the master plan by extending there active cooperation, by giving cooperation of such a nature that everybody abides by the master plan. If nobody commits breaches or dare to violate the master plan then perhaps the answering respondents will be able to implement it in toto. The general deviation which has been pointed is because of the utilisation of the areas for the commercial and residential purposes by the private coloniser while developing their private colonies. If nobody commits breaches or dare to violate the master plan then perhaps the answering respondents will be able to implement it in toto. The general deviation which has been pointed is because of the utilisation of the areas for the commercial and residential purposes by the private coloniser while developing their private colonies. Major factor which has been detected as the root cause for that alleged violation is that the people do not want to go far from the town and maximum people want to reside by the nearby areas irrespective of the different land use of that area. The another reason for the alleged deviation which in the respectful submission of the answering respondent is promulgation of the Rajasthan Municipalities (change of land use) Rules, 2000. These rules have been enforced w.e.f. 31.3.2000 vide publication in Rajasthan Gazette. The copy of the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/2. Now from the above narration, it is clear that the preparation of master plan and further change of land use to what extent can be permitted, is definitely a policy matter which has to be decided in individual case in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government and in the respectful submission of the answering respondents, this Hon'ble High Court should observe self imposed restriction in this respect and should not interfere in the policy matter. It is again made clear that the change of land used is not to be granted merely by asking under the Rules of 2000 but is to be granted in guarded manner at the instance of the respective committees. In this way, the purpose of the writ petition can safely be said to have been fulfilled as to prevent the future deviation of the land use the various committies has been constituted to check the unfatered change of land use now.” 3. Vide order dated 25.4.06, this court directed the respondents to place on record following particulars about Master Plans prepared under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 ('UIT Act') and operative in the five major townships of Rajasthan viz. Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner, Ajmer and Udaipur: “1. The no construction zone green belt and public amenities zone provided under the Master plan of respective towns. 2. Deviation made in the original Master plans of each city from time to time in respect of aforesaid zones. 3. Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner, Ajmer and Udaipur: “1. The no construction zone green belt and public amenities zone provided under the Master plan of respective towns. 2. Deviation made in the original Master plans of each city from time to time in respect of aforesaid zones. 3. Deviation, if any, permitted in respect of the aforesaid zones while approving the development scheme in the aforesaid towns. 4. The construction or development which have actually taken place in respect of aforesaid zone contrary to Master plan. 5. Action, if any, taken by the authorities to remove the construction or development that have taken place in each town contrary to Master plan. The aforesaid details may be submitted separately in respect of each of the aforesaid 5 towns form within 8 weeks. The Chief Town Planner of the State or any officer duly authorised by him not below the rank of Deputy Town Planner of the aforesaid 5 towns shall be present on the next date of hearing to explain the matter.” 4. In compliance of order dated 25.4.06 passed by this court as aforesaid, the respondents submitted a compliance report on 2.8.06 taking the stand that the Master Plans have been prepared for Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner, Ajmer and Udaipur cities, in which, certain places have been reserved as 'Green Belt Areas' (also known as peripheral control belt) and for the purpose of public amenities zone. While giving the details of deviation from the Master Plans of various cities made, the stand of the respondents was that the change in the land use of areas reserved in the Master Plans have been made by the Committee constituted by the State Government under Rajasthan Municipalities (Change in Land Use) Rules, 2000, on the basis of the recommendations made by the local bodies and the site reports of the land. According to the respondents, the change in the land use permitted is very small looking to the overall areas reserved for various purposes in the Master Plans. 5. Later, the State filed yet another report on 10.7.07 giving details of deviations from the proposal of the Master Plans of the various cities. The respondents have also placed on record copies of certain proceedings taken by the State Level Change of Land Use Committee permitting the change of land use of various categories of the land as specified under the Master Plans. 6. The respondents have also placed on record copies of certain proceedings taken by the State Level Change of Land Use Committee permitting the change of land use of various categories of the land as specified under the Master Plans. 6. Vide order dated 25.7.07, this court directed the Chief Town Planner to furnish the particulars of the applications for deviations made in the Master Development Plan and the number of applications rejected, during last five years. 7. Pursuant to directions contained in order dated July 25, 2007, the respondents submitted the report indicating deviations made in the Master Plans and the number of applications rejected during the last five years. However, vide order dated 20.8.07, on the request of learned Additional Advocate General, further time as prayed for was granted to enable the respondents to place better particulars in support of what is stated in the report as well as broad norms adopted for permitting deviations in the Master Plan relating to Jaipur City. 8. Vide order dated 25.9.07, Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA'), Jaipur, was impleaded as party respondent in the matter. 9. On 5.12.07, this court requested the counsels appearing as amicus curiae to analyse the detail submitted by the respondents about the deviations. The court directed that the amicus curiae shall further place on record their submissions on the report about deviation and possible suggestion to remit assistance in the six townships of Rajasthan separately. The Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the JDA was directed to furnish like information about deviations made in Master Plan/Scheme of Jaipur. At the same time, the court passed an interim order restraining the respondents from making further deviation in the green belt identified in the following terms: “Meanwhile, until further orders, no deviations in the green belt identified in the Master Plan of all the six major townships governed by above order shall be permitted by the respondents.” 10. On an application preferred on behalf of the State for vacating the interim order dated 5.12.07, this court vide order dated 28.4.08 modified the interim order, in the following terms: “In view of the mandates of Section 25 of the Act and the rules framed under the Municipal Statutes, the State Authorities are well-protected and they may go ahead with the deviation if any in the Master Plan for the benefit of the public at large in accordance with law. The interim order passed by this Court, in this view of the matter, needs to be clarified in the following terms:- The State Authority and the Development Authorities may proceed with the changes, if any, in accordance with law as referred to above and such decisions taken by them, however, will abide by the ultimate result of this writ application. With these directions and observations, the interim order dated 05.12.2007 stands modified. Since this PIL is of 2004, in our view, let it be listed for final disposal in second week of July, 2008, by which time the report of the Committee is also expected.” 11. At this stage, PIL petitions being Nos.8974/05, 6084/06, 2500/07, 5083/07, 10115/07 pending before the Jaipur Bench of this court, involving substantially the same issue regarding deviation of the Master Development Plan, were directed to be transferred to the Principal Seat for hearing alongwith the writ petition No.1554/04, vide order dated 31.7.08 passed by the Division Bench at Jaipur. The said writ petitions Nos. 8974/05, 6084/06, 2500/07, 5083/07 and 10115/07, transferred from Jaipur Bench of this court have been registered at Principal Seat as writ petitions Nos.5646/08, 5907/08, 5642/08, 5908/08 and 5645/08 respectively and accordingly, these petitions are listed for consideration alongwith the main Writ Petition (PIL) No.1554/04. 12. A brief reference of the controversy raised in various petitions connected with the Writ Petition No.1554/04, which is taken to be the lead petition, would be appropriate. 13. By way of Writ Petition No.5642/08, the petitioner has questioned the change of land use made in the Jaipur City in deviation of the Master Development Plan after 1.9.98. The petitioner has averred that respondent no.3-JDA and respondent no.6-Municipal Corporation, Jaipur are frequently changing the land use in contravention of the Master Development Plan, 2011 in the garb of Section 25(3) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 ('Act No.25 of 1982') and thus, affecting material alteration in the character of Master Plan. The petitioner has prayed that all such change of the land use made be quashed and the respondents be directed not to change the Master Development Plan without applying the provisions of Sections 25 and 28 of the Act No.25 of 1982. While questioning the change of the land use permitted, the petitioner has placed on record certain notifications issued by the State Government proposing to change the land use. While questioning the change of the land use permitted, the petitioner has placed on record certain notifications issued by the State Government proposing to change the land use. The respondents in reply to the petition, have taken the stand that while making a prayer for quashing the change of land use made after 1.9.98 and for removal of the construction raised, none of the persons in whose favour permission for change in land use has been granted and who have raised construction pursuant thereto, have been impleaded as party to the petition. Precisely, the stand of the respondents is that the change of the land use has been permitted after following the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. It is submitted that the change of the land use in terms of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982, does not amount to review of the Master Development Plan so as to attract the provisions of Section 28 of the Act No.25 of 1982. 14. By way of Writ Petition No.5645/08, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents in taking a decision to convert the land measuring 1222.93 hectares between Kho-Nagoria to Goner Road, covered by the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011, from ecological zone to residential and mixed land use, by way of zonal lay out plan of Sector 34 and Sector 35. The allegation of the petitioner is that the said sector plans have been prepared and approved under the influence of Senior IAS officers who have planned their own colony. The petitioner has named the IAS officers, who are holding the land comprising khasra nos.3315, 4726/3312 and 4727/3314. It is averred that the plan has been framed to suit the requirement of high ups and for that purpose even the alignment of proposed roads, have been changed to a great extent. It is submitted that the conversion of the land of ecological zone to residential and mixed land use by the State Authorities is in defiance of the undertaking given by the JDA and State and the directions issued by this court in the matter of “Yashwant Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan”, decided on 17.3.05. It is submitted that the conversion of the land of ecological zone to residential and mixed land use by the State Authorities is in defiance of the undertaking given by the JDA and State and the directions issued by this court in the matter of “Yashwant Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan”, decided on 17.3.05. Responding to the notice, the respondents have filed a reply to the petition taking the stand that when the Master Development Plan of Jaipur was being prepared, the framers of the Master Development Plan presumed that future growth in Jaipur would be only towards West and South side and therefore, the area on the East side was set apart for ecological zone, however, this presumption did not appear to be correct. It is stated that the State Level Committee found that area in east of Jhalana Hills and south of Jaipur Agra Highway between Railway Line and Kho-Nagoria Road and Goner Road is all private khatedari land, which has not been acquired by the JDA. It is submitted that it is not possible for the JDA to acquire such huge land for maintaining it as green belt and therefore, keeping in view the growing pressure on the land of housing and the fact that this entire land is private khatedari land and it is in close vicinity of Jaipur City, it would be difficult to ensure that the housing colony do not develop on this land and accordingly, visualizing the chances of unplanned growth adverse to the interest of the city, for the coordinated planning of Jaipur Region Master Development Plan and the Zonal Development Plan of the area in question was modified from ecological to residential and mixed uses. It is submitted that the modifications were made in accordance with provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. 15. By way of Writ Petition No.5646/08, the petitioner has questioned legality of the action of the respondents in issuing the notification dated 16.4.05 permitting the use of the land in 200 ft. wide strip in both the sides of the road on Jawahar Lal Nehru (JLN) Marg from south end of Mahavir Park to Jawahar Circle after the right to way as prescribed, for the purpose of institutional as well as commercial (Big business establishment), which is shown in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011 as institutional area. wide strip in both the sides of the road on Jawahar Lal Nehru (JLN) Marg from south end of Mahavir Park to Jawahar Circle after the right to way as prescribed, for the purpose of institutional as well as commercial (Big business establishment), which is shown in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011 as institutional area. The petition is being contested by the State taking the stand that two big roads connecting International Airport with JLN Marg are in pipeline and JLN Marg is going to be a showcase for international and domestic tourists and it will ease off pressure from MI Road, which is at present the main business centre in the city. It is submitted that such developments are bound to take place with the development of the city. It is submitted that the JLN Marg is a six lane road, which is free of traffic jams. It is submitted that the change of land use has been permitted in conformity with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. 16. By way of Writ Petition No.5907/08, the petitioner has questioned indiscriminate modifications of the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011 made about 500 times in the preceding years. The details of modifications permitted, are set out in the Schedule A annexed with the writ petition, which reveal that by way of various orders, even the land use of the land forming part of green belt, ecological zone, park, recreational activities, catchment area and pasturage, has been changed. While questioning the modifications made as aforesaid, the petitioner has specifically prayed that the JDA may be directed not to part with the land recorded as gair mumkin nadi etc. and in this regard the position as it was existing on 15.8.1947 may be directed to be restored. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed not to change the land use of charagah land and not to allot charagah land to anybody and further that if in any case, the change of land use of charagah is unavoidable, then an equal area of land should be reserved as charagah. That apart, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to immediately take up steps regarding Zonal Development Plan as per Section 23 of the Act No.25 of 1982 and publish the same immediately. That apart, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to immediately take up steps regarding Zonal Development Plan as per Section 23 of the Act No.25 of 1982 and publish the same immediately. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition have taken the stand that the Master Development Plan is not a static document and the modifications have been permitted by the State Government in accordance with provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. Regarding Zonal Development Plan, it is submitted by the respondents that JDA has already embarked upon the preparation of Master Development Plan of Jaipur City with horizon year 2025 wherein, necessary care shall be taken for preparation of Zonal Development Plan in accordance with law. It is submitted that Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”), do not apply to Jaipur Region as the development in the Jaipur Region is governed by the provisions of Act No.25 of 1982. 17. By way of Writ Petition No.5908/08, the petitioner, an Architect by profession, has questioned the action of the JDA, Jaipur, in proposing to develop a Shooting Range Project in village-Todiramjanipura, Tehsil- Sanganer, District-Jaipur, on the land which is shown in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur as land reserved for the purpose of construction of 200 ft. wide road. A reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the stand that the Shooting Range, Archery and Equestrian Centre of international standard was proposed on 15.9 hectares land of which 11.17 hectares was owned by JDA, 0.9779 hectare was owned by Department of Forest and 2.95 hectare was owned by private khatedar tenants. It is submitted that the Government of India has permitted diversion of the forest land vide order dated 13.4.06 with certain conditions. It is submitted that compliance of the conditions imposed was ensured vide communication dated 12.5.06 and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring the khatedari land. It is submitted that challenge to the land acquisition proceedings laid before this court has failed. The categorical stand of the respondents is that the JDA has already developed fully functional Shooting Range in December, 2007 and in February, 2008, reputed national and international level shooting competitions were held. It is submitted that challenge to the land acquisition proceedings laid before this court has failed. The categorical stand of the respondents is that the JDA has already developed fully functional Shooting Range in December, 2007 and in February, 2008, reputed national and international level shooting competitions were held. According to the respondents, the entire land which is used for developing the Shooting Range was not reserved for the purpose of construction of road as claimed. It is submitted that the proposal for the construction of the road already stands dropped, which is not impugned in the present petition. 18. During the pendency of the petitions, a Committee constituted by this court consisting of learned counsels Mr.M.R.Singhvi and Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, submitted interim compliance report pointing out deviations made by the State and Local Authorities from Master Development Plans of major cities with the suggestions to issue directions to the respondents in the following terms: “22. That in view of the material which has come on record it would be just and proper to suggests that (i) the local bodies (Municipalities, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur Development Authority, Jodhpur Development Authority etc) be directed not to grant any permission contrary to master plan; (ii) the Registration Department be also apprised of the master plan of the respective areas and should be bound down not to register any document contrary to master plan and if possible, some provisions may also be made in the Registration Act; (iii) deviations which have so far been made, but have not been acted upon may not be permitted to go ahead with the deviation and (iv) special care should be taken to and maintain the peripheral control belt, which is the lung of a town (v) all changes, which as detailed above are void ab-initio may be declared as such and the same may be given effect to under the supervision of the Court.” 19. The respondent-JDA while filing the written submissions with regard to interim compliance report submitted by the Court Commissioners, has taken the stand that the change of the land use is permitted after due consideration of the objections/suggestions received pursuant to the notice issued under Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. The respondent-JDA while filing the written submissions with regard to interim compliance report submitted by the Court Commissioners, has taken the stand that the change of the land use is permitted after due consideration of the objections/suggestions received pursuant to the notice issued under Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. It is submitted that the total area of Jaipur Region is about 3 lac hectare against which the area of the changed land use is only 47 hectare, which is very minimum looking to the total area and population of the Jaipur Region. 20. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the State with regard to interim compliance report submitted, the stand taken is that during last few years particularly, after economic liberation and reform set in force after 1991, the pace of development in the urban area has multiplied manifold and the level of urbanisation has gone up from about 19% in the year 1991 to 23% in 2001. It is submitted that the migration from the rural areas to big cities like Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Kota, Bikaner and Ajmer is significantly higher. Precisely, the stand of the State is that the change of the land use is permitted only in the public interest after following the procedure laid down under the statute by the competent authority. 21. On 7.12.10, this court while adjourning the matters for a day, directed concerned and responsible officer of the JDA and Jodhpur Development Authority to remain present in the court alongwith data regarding how many modifications have been made in the Master Plans and how many applications seeking modifications are pending. 22. On 9.12.10, after due consideration of the position regarding deviation from Master Plans, the court passed an interim order in the following terms: “From Jaipur Development Authority, Mr.P.Aravind is present in person and he has submitted a chart showing that in last six months, 151 changes have been sanctioned under Section 25(1) which comes to roughly 25 changes done to the master plan every month. It is submitted that in ecological zone, the change is made as per the recommendations made by the State Government and even in ecological zone, changes have been made of which number has not been specified. Similarly, information has been submitted Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur. It is submitted that in ecological zone, the change is made as per the recommendations made by the State Government and even in ecological zone, changes have been made of which number has not been specified. Similarly, information has been submitted Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur. In the circumstances, we direct Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur; Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur; Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer; Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner; Urban Improvement Trust, Kota and Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur to submit the details of the changes in the master plan after the Committee has submitted the report on 21.1.2009. We also deem it proper to direct the aforesaid authorities to specifically point out how many changes have been made in the ecological zone along with the area covered under the change. Let the requisite information be filed within a period of three weeks from today supported by an affidavit. As changes are also being made in the ecological zone and periphery belt including green belt, we deem it proper to direct the authorities not to effect any change without prior permission of the Court in the ecological zone and periphery belt area including green belt. It is also made clear that ordinarily even the changes in other zones should not be made in the routine manner. It appears that changes are made in routine manner. In case, it is found that any change is found to be illegal, the responsibility shall be fixed on the individual officer.” (emphasis supplied) 23. Pursuant to the order passed by this court noticed hereinabove, besides reply to the writ petitions, the State of Rajasthan and Local Authorities have furnished the reports regarding violations/deviations of the master plans of six major cities of the State viz. Jaipur, Jodhpur, Ajmer, Kota, Bikaner and Udaipur. In view of the interim order dated 9.12.10 passed by this court, directing the respondent authorities not to effect any change in the land use without prior permission of the court in ecological zone and periphery belt area including green belt, many applications have been preferred by the applicants seeking diversion of the land use from ecological zone/green belt/periphery control belt to residential, commercial, institutional and industrial purposes etc. Some of the applications seeking permission for change of land use were granted by this court in the larger public interest and many more are still pending consideration. 24. Some of the applications seeking permission for change of land use were granted by this court in the larger public interest and many more are still pending consideration. 24. We have heard Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, appearing in person, Mr.Abhinav Bhandari, appearing for the petitioners (in Writ Petition No.5642/08, 5645/08 and 5907/08), Mr.N.M.Lodha, the Advocate General and Dr.P.S.Bhati, Additional Advocate General (as he then was) appearing for the State and Mr.P.P.Choudhary, Senior Advocate, Mr.Ashok Chhangani, Advocate, appearing for the applicants. 25. The learned Amicus Curiae, Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, contended that the Master Development Plan is prepared under the provisions contained in UIT Act, the Act No.25 of 1982, Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009 (“Act No.2 of 2009”) and Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 ('Act No.39 of 2013'), as the case may be, to ensure systematic and planned development of a city and adjoining areas with a view to protect the residents from ill effects of urbanization. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the protection of environment, provisions regarding ecological zone/green belt/ peripheral control belt, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, playgrounds for children, promenade for residents and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern, which are taken care of while preparing a Master Development Plan. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the ecological zone, green belt, periphery control belt, open spaces, parks etc. in terms of the phrase as used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are “lung spaces” provided for the citizens and deprivation thereof amounts to violating the right of citizens to healthy, hygienic and clean environment, guaranteed as a concomitant right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned amicus curiae submitted that Article 48A in Part-IV of the Constitution of India enjoins that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country and therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the Local Authorities not only to ensure and safeguard a proper environment but also a duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect both the man-made and natural environment. Learned counsel submitted that in the ecological zone/green belt/peripheral control belt/open area/park and civil amenities for citizens are provided in the Master Plan but a small section of the society for vested interest is indulged in violating the same indiscriminately with the aid of local authorities. Learned counsel submitted that the statement regarding the change in the land use in peripheral control belt/ecological zone will show that a large number of deviations have been permitted by the State Authorities with impunity. Learned counsel submitted that the applications made before this court for the change of land use as many as 84 in numbers also indicate that huge land is sought to be diverted from ecological zone/green belt/peripheral control belt. Learned counsel submitted that with the urban habitation in the cities and towns, since the ambient air in the atmosphere gets polluted on account of vehicular traffic, sewage, garbage and affluent discharge by industries located within the city or in the vicinity of the cities, the Government and the local bodies which have been invested with the regulatory powers to make adequate provisions in the form of green belt/ecological zone/peripheral control belt, ensuring adequate number of plants, trees and shrubs to generate adequate quantum of oxygen, ambient quality of air for ensuring quality of life to the citizens and therefore, once an area is earmarked as ecological zone/peripheral control belt/green belt, it should not be permitted to be changed in any manner. In support of the contention, learned amicus curiae has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Manohar Joshi vs. State of Maharasthra', (2012) 3 SCC 619 and 'Virendra Gaur Vs. State of Haryana' (1995) 2 SCC 577 . Learned amicus curiae submitted that keeping in view the increasing level of pollution in the cities, there exists a need for creation of more and more green spaces in the city besides preserving the existing one. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the ecological zone/ peripheral control belt/green belt specified in the notified Master Development Plan form basic character/feature of Master Development Plan, which cannot be permitted to be altered and such land cannot be permitted to be put to other uses i.e. commercial, residential, institutional and industrial etc.. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the ecological zone/ peripheral control belt/green belt specified in the notified Master Development Plan form basic character/feature of Master Development Plan, which cannot be permitted to be altered and such land cannot be permitted to be put to other uses i.e. commercial, residential, institutional and industrial etc.. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the study of the Master Development Plans notified over the years, reveals that every time when a new Master Development Plan is prepared for a city, the area originally earmarked in the preceding Master Development Plan as periphery belt is obliterated and its boundaries shifted, only to form the area/villages newly added as a new peripheral control belt. Learned amicus curiae submitted that this methodology is not pragmatic and defies the entire purpose of having a control belt around the core developed area in the Master Development Plan and therefore, the area shown as control belt in the existing Master Development Plan should not be given up entirely for development in the new Master Development Plan. Learned amicus curiae submitted that before shifting the control belt while expanding the area of the city, a buffer zone/green zone of at least one kilometer should be left around the periphery of the core developed area. Learned amicus curiae submitted that no change of the land use should be permitted in this buffer zone, which will help to maintain the lung spaces for the citizens and the ecology of the area. Learned amicus curiae would submit that in any case, the ecological zone and green belt specified in the existing Master Development Plan should not be diverted for any other use. Learned amicus curiae submitted that even Section 25 of Act No.25 of 1982, pari materia provisions in the Act No.2 of 2009, Act No.39 of the Act of 2013 and Section 73B of UIT Act, which provide for subsequent modifications of the Plans, permits only the modifications which in the opinion of the authority do not affect material alteration in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of the land uses or the standards of the population density. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the power conferred upon the authorities to promote planned development of any part of the city in more efficient manner, cannot be used for permitting the change of the land use in routine manner. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the power conferred upon the authorities to promote planned development of any part of the city in more efficient manner, cannot be used for permitting the change of the land use in routine manner. Learned amicus curiae submitted that various provisions incorporated providing for framing of the Master Development Plan and modification/review thereof have to be read not in isolation, but as a whole, in the context of purpose of their enactment. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the modification of the Master Development Plan is permissible as an exception in the larger public interest but the material on record clearly indicate that there is wholesale breach of the provisions contained in the Master Development Plan and it is modified very lightly by permitting the use of the land meant for green belt, ecological zone, peripheral control belt for other purposes just to serve the vested interest of individuals to earn undue profits. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the public interest has to be understood and interpreted in the light of the entire scheme, purpose and object of the enactment. In support of the contention, reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S.Muddappa and Others”, (1991) 4 SCC 54 . Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Manohar Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra” 2012 (3) SCC 619 , learned amicus curiae submitted that in the garb of modification of the plan, the respondents cannot be permitted to carry out a development contrary to Master Development Plan frustrating its very object i.e. planned development of the city. Drawing the attention of the court to Jodhpur Master Development Plan 2001- 2023, learned amicus curiae submitted that during the operative period of the Master Development Plan, the uses of the land forming part of the periphery control belt have been specifically delineated and therefore, the question of permitting the land forming part of the periphery control belt for the purposes other than specified, does not arise. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the statistics made available by the Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan on its website clearly show that the extent of forest land in the State has reduced from 39,420 sq. kms. in the year 1960-61 to 32,638.64 sq. kms. in the year 2006-07. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the statistics made available by the Department of Forest, Government of Rajasthan on its website clearly show that the extent of forest land in the State has reduced from 39,420 sq. kms. in the year 1960-61 to 32,638.64 sq. kms. in the year 2006-07. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the ever growing tendency is seen that the modification of the Master Development Plan is permitted to subserve the interest of private colonizers/builders/developers, who have failed to adhere to the norms prescribed, giving a set back to the purpose sought to be achieved by the Master Development Plans. Learned amicus curiae submitted that though, before passing the prohibitory order by this court while preparing the Master Development Plan, the authorities had made some provisions for green belt/peripheral control belt/ecological zone in the respective Master Development Plans but after prohibitory order being passed by the court, a novel method has been adopted by revising the plans and shifting the places meant for ecological zone, green belt and peripheral control belt by giving a different nomenclature. Learned amicus curiae submitted that in garb of revision of Master Development Plan, the minimum requirement of ecological zone/green belt and peripheral control belt with reference to the population at the relevant time and projected increase therein during the plan period cannot be done away with or reduced. Learned amicus curiae submitted that obviously the “lung spaces” for existing population cannot be shifted to number of kilometers away in the garb of requirement of future expansion of the city and thus, converting the city into just a cluster of buildings. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the respondents with an intention to avoid the effect of interim order passed by this court, have resorted to revision of the Master Development Plan of Jodhpur and Udaipur wherein, the periphery control belt/ecological/green belt has been done away with. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the land forming part of peripheral control belt/eco sensitive zone/green belt/ urban 2/ urban 3, as the case may be, is the land most sought for by the private entrepreneurs for various projects and therefore, its exploitation by a very small section of the people for satisfying their personal goals is definitely not conducive to the health of the city and in the larger public interest. 26. 26. Learned amicus curiae submitted that in order to prevent wholesale breach of the Master Development Plan and to check and curb the tendency of certain people constituting a small section of the society and to ensure the adherence and compliance of the Master Development Plans and the relevant law governing the field, once a place has been marked for ecological zone/green belt/periphery belt, it should not be permitted to be changed in any manner resorting to the provisions of the various enactments permitting modifications of the Master Development Plans during their operative period. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the adequate provisions should be made making environmental impact assessment as mandatory prerequisites for approving any change of the land use in the area covered by the Master Development Plan. 27. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the major cause of unplanned development is that the private colonies are being permitted to be developed on the land having area less than the reasonable area required for developing a colony. Learned amicus curiae submitted that instead of forming layout of the colonies on large scale, the colonies are approved on the basis of small individual layouts in the area running from 2 to 10 acres, wherein obviously no provision for a park or a playground or civic amenities can be made. Learned amicus curiae would submit that so as to check haphazard and unplanned development formation of small layouts by developers should be discouraged and the development authorities should take up large scale developments inasmuch as, no small developer can develop a good colony with all facilities in a few acres of land. In support of the contention, learned amicus curiae has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Bondu Ramaswamy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority', (2010) 7 SCC 129 . 28. Learned amicus curiae suggested that the location of the industries should not be scattered and the Master Development Plan should provide two separate zones at the boundary limit of the urban area with the buffer area for any future expansion in the same patch, if required. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO), a body constituted for industrial development, is permitting the change of land use in the industrial area, needs to be restrained from doing so. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO), a body constituted for industrial development, is permitting the change of land use in the industrial area, needs to be restrained from doing so. Learned amicus curiae submitted that Master Development Plan should contain adequate provisions for re-location of industrial set ups operating in the core developed area and should be shifted beyond the area covered by Master Development Plan. 29. Learned amicus curiae would submit that the roads shown in the Master Development Plan should be earmarked by mounting pillars on the actual site in order to ensure that such land remains intact at the time of execution and is not encroached upon by anybody. Learned amicus curiae suggested that the road width for the area reserved for residential purposes, industrial purposes and the ring road should not be less than 80 ft., 200 ft. and 300 ft. respectively. Similarly, appropriate width should also be prescribed for Major District Roads (MDR), State Highway (SH) and National Highways (NH) for the entire State. 30. Learned amicus curiae submitted that as per the norms laid down and the provisions made in the Master Development Plan, 100 ft. wide strip land on the either side of the Highways must be strictly reserved for the purpose of tree plantation. Learned amicus curiae submitted that such strips of green belt should be converted into forest land and no conversion whatsoever should be permitted. Learned amicus curiae urged that the conversion made and any construction raised in the width of 100 ft. on the either side of the Highways, must be removed and the green strips as per the norms laid down must be restored. 31. Learned amicus curiae while reiterating that the protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, playgrounds for the children and other amenities for the residents of the city specified in the Master Development Plan or the colony developed, cannot be permitted to be converted to any other use whatsoever, but the respondents have even proceeded to permit the change of land use of the lands earmarked in the Master Development Plan for the said purposes. Learned amicus curiae would submit that change of use of such land earmarked in the Master Development Plan for the aforesaid purposes is against the public interest and defeats the very purpose of the statutory mandate to ensure the planned development so as to attain a quality of life for the residents of the city and therefore, all such conversions permitted in defiance of the Master Development Plans deserve to be undone and the land use as specified in the Master Development Plans, must be restored. In this regard, learned amicus curiae has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of “Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S.Mudappa”, (1991) 4 SCC 54 , “Virendra Gaur vs. State of Haryana”, (1995) 2 SCC 577 , “M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India”, (1996) 4 SCC 351 , “M.C.Ludhiana vs. Balinder Bachan Singh”, (2004) 5 SCC 182 , “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India”, (2004) 6 SCC 588, “Sushanta Tagore & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.”, (2005) 3 SCC 16 , “S.N.Chandrashekhar vs. State of Karnataka”, AIR 2006 SC 1204 , “Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao vs. Vijaywads, Guntur, Tanali”, 2011 AIR SCW 5424. 32. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the change of the land use in the Master Development Plan from residential to commercial, institutional or industrial purpose is playing havoc with the healthy, hygienic and peaceful life of the residents settled in the residential colonies and therefore, the change of the land use in the residential colonies already developed or proposed to be developed as per the Master Development Plan, for commercial or institutional or industrial or mixed use needs to be banned altogether. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “R.K.Mittal & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.”, (2012) 2 SCC 232 . 33. Learned amicus curiae urged that wherever permission for residential or commercial multi storey buildings are granted, a person should be bound down to provide parking space and the construction of the building should not be permitted to be proceed with, unless the requirement of parking place is satisfied. 33. Learned amicus curiae urged that wherever permission for residential or commercial multi storey buildings are granted, a person should be bound down to provide parking space and the construction of the building should not be permitted to be proceed with, unless the requirement of parking place is satisfied. Learned amicus curiae submitted that unless the parking is provided, such building should not be permitted to commence its functioning and after commencement of the functioning, if parking spaces are used for other purposes, such building should be sealed forthwith and heavy penalty should be imposed on the builder/developer. Learned amicus curiae would submit that in existing buildings where parking spaces provided in the sanctioned plan, are diverted to other use, the same should be directed to be restored within time schedule failing which the sealing of the building should be ordered coupled with heavy penalties. 34. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the construction of the building in deviation of the Master Development Plan, the sanctioned plan of the building and the bye-laws of the concerned local authority has become routine and therefore, it is the need of time that the building bye-laws of the local authorities are directed to be enforced strictly. Learned amicus curiae submitted that illegal construction raised in set backs are being compounded as a matter of course. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the compounding of set backs and the height of the building should not be permitted in any circumstances. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Compounding and Compromising of the Offences) Rules, 1966, learned amicus curiae submitted that the same confer unbridled and uncanalized power in the hands of local authority, which is against the scheme of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 ('Act No.18 of 2009') and therefore, deserve to be declared ultra vires or should not be permitted to operate in contravention of the provisions of the Act No.18 of 2009. Learned amicus curiae submitted that compounding of unauthorised construction raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan should be permitted in conformity with the building bye-laws of the local authorities only by way of exception when it is found to be absolutely bona fide. Learned amicus curiae submitted that unauthorised construction raised in deviation of the Master Development Plan or the building bye-laws of the local authority concerned must be demolished. Learned amicus curiae submitted that unauthorised construction raised in deviation of the Master Development Plan or the building bye-laws of the local authority concerned must be demolished. In support of the contention, learned amicus curiae has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of “Pratibha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.”, JT 1991(2) SC 543, “Dr. G.N. Khajuria Vs. Delhi Development Authority”, (1995) 5 SCC 762 , “M.I. Builders Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu” (1999) 6 SCC 464 , “Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa & Ors.”, (2004) 8 SCC 733 , “Shanti Sports Club and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.” (2009) 15 SCC 705 , “Dipak Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation”, 2013(5) SCC 336 , “Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Ors.”, (2013) 5 SCC 357 , “Association for Environment Protection Vs. State of Kerala”, (2013) 7 SCC 226 . 35. Learned amicus curiae submitted that while raising construction of commercial buildings, a tendency has developed to put the stair case and ramp on the footpath and in the residential colonies, open land meant for footpath are being used for lawn by putting fencing, which needs to be checked with a strong hand. Learned amicus curiae submitted that no signboard or hoarding should be permitted to be put on the footpath/public way. 36. Learned amicus curiae submitted that for purpose of developing multi-storey buildings in the city, the area should be distinctly marked in the Master Development Plan and no multi storey building should be permitted to come up in the existing residential colonies developed with the infrastructure, keeping in view the number of family units to be settled in such colonies. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the construction of the multi storey buildings where there are settlements of the individual family units in the houses constructed as per the building bye-laws, the permission to raise multi storey buildings cannot be granted, adversely affecting rights of residents of the residential colony developed by the local authority or developed by the private developers and approved by the local authority. 37. 37. Learned amicus curiae submitted that provisions of Section 33-A of Act No.25 of 1982, Section 34 of Act No.2 of 2009 and Section 34 of the Act No.39 of 2013, which permit composition of unauthorised development is ex facie contrary to the concept of planned development envisaged under Chapter V of Act No.25 of 1982, Act No.2 of 2009 and Act No.39 of 2013 and therefore, the said provisions, which confer unbridled power in the hands of the JDA, Jaipur, JDA, Jodhpur and JDA, Ajmer, deserve to be declared ultra vires. 38. Regarding the change of land use of pasture land for other purposes, learned amicus curiae submitted that 'pasture land' as defined by Section 5(28) of the Act of 1955, meant for grazing of the cattles of the village or villages cannot be divested to use for any other purpose unless and until special circumstances exist which necessitate change of classification of any pasture land. Learned amicus curiae submitted that change of classification could be made by the competent authority in conformity with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short “the Rules of 1955”) but then, while permitting the change of classification, it is obligatory on the District Collector to set apart equal area of unoccupied culturable government land as pasture land. Learned amicus curiae submitted that unauthorised occupation over the pasture land cannot be regularized and must be removed. In support of the contention, learned amicus curiae has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Jagpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, 2011(11) SCC 396 . 39. Mr.Abhinav Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5646/08, submitted that the area earmarked in the Master Development Plan as institutional cannot be permitted to be converted to commercial use during the operative period of the Master Development Plan or even thereafter, while revising the same. Learned counsel submitted that the land uses prescribed in the Master Development Plan cannot be materially changed in the subsequent Master Development Plan. Learned counsel submitted that the land uses prescribed in the Master Development Plan cannot be materially changed in the subsequent Master Development Plan. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents while effecting the change of the land use in the Master Development Plan, of the specified area on JLN Marg from institutional to commercial and mixed use, have materially altered the Master Development Plan and therefore, the position of the land use in respect of such area specified in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011 as institutional, deserves to be restored. Drawing the attention of this court to the Schedule attached to the writ petition (D.B.C.Writ Petition No.5907/08), learned counsel submitted that the respondents by invoking the provisions of Section 25 have made the modifications altering the basic character of the plan and proceeded with the development in unplanned manner. Learned counsel would submit that the land forming part of nadi, water tank, catchment area, the ecological zone, green belt and the land reserved for parks and other common facilities in the Master Development Plan, cannot be divested for any other use and thus, the action of the respondents in permitting the change of the land use is ex facie against the spirit of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents in permitting the change of the land use in defiance of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982 and dehors the policy decision underlying the Master Development Plan duly notified, is null and void. Learned counsel submitted that the specific allegation levelled in Writ Petition No.5645/08, preferred by the petitioner-Kamlesh regarding change of the land use from ecological to residential and mixed use, just to extend favour to higher officials of the State, is not controverted by the respondents by placing any material on record and thus, the original use of the said land as specified in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011 deserves to be restored. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, so as to extend the undue favour to the IAS Officers, the plans for Sector 34 and 35 were approved by the Building Plan Committee and not by the competent authority in conformity with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act No.25 of 1982. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, so as to extend the undue favour to the IAS Officers, the plans for Sector 34 and 35 were approved by the Building Plan Committee and not by the competent authority in conformity with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act No.25 of 1982. Learned counsel submitted that while preparing the sector plan, the roads have been provided in four sides just to isolate the colony sought to be developed for IAS Officers. Relying upon a decision of this court in the matter of 'Yashwant Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.', 2005 (2) WLC 559, learned counsel submitted that the question that the land earmarked as ecological zone in the Master Development Plan cannot be divested to be used for any other purpose, is no more res integra and therefore, the action of the respondents in changing the land use of ecological zone just to extend favour to the higher ups, deserves to be declared illegal and the position of the land falling in ecological zone, deserves to be restored. Learned counsel would submit that any policy decision of the Government cannot override statutory provisions and therefore, the change of land use effected by the local authorities relying upon the circulars issued by the State Government in defiance of provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of 'Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh and Others' (2007) 2 SCC 491 and 'State of Orrisa and Others Vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo' (2007) 15 SCC 129 . Learned counsel would submit that it is well settled that the power of the State Government to issue executive instructions is confined to filling up of the gaps or covering the area which is otherwise not covered by the existing statutes and therefore, the executive instructions issued by the State Government overriding the statutory provisions are null and void. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Union of India and Another Vs. Central Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Service (CE&MES) Group 'A' (Direct Recruits) Assn., CPWD and Others' (2008) 1 SCC 354 . 40. Mr. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Union of India and Another Vs. Central Electrical & Mechanical Engineering Service (CE&MES) Group 'A' (Direct Recruits) Assn., CPWD and Others' (2008) 1 SCC 354 . 40. Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5642/08 and 5646/08, appearing in person, submitted that the change in the land use effected by the local authorities in purported exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of Section 25 of Act No.25 of 1982, impugned in the Writ Petition No.5642/08, amounts to material alteration in the character of the plan, which is not permissible as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Act No.25 of 1982. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Yashwant Sharma's case (supra). Mr. Bhandari submitted that JLN Marg is an institutional area where various schools, colleges, hospitals are situated and therefore, if commercial activities are permitted on the said road, it will result in increase of traffic on the road, which is bound to generate air pollution affecting the health of the students and the patients. It is submitted that if the change of the land use of an area earmarked in the Master Development Plan for institutional purposes is diverted to be used for commercial purposes, it will amount to altering the basic character of the plan and thus, the impugned notification dated 16.4.05 issued by the State Government permitting mixed use of institutional area for institution and commercial purpose, deserves to be quashed.. 1. Mr.N.M.Lodha, learned Advocate General, submitted that the Master Development Plan is a policy document for guiding the future development of the city in a planned manner, which is prepared after considering the past trends of socio-economic and physical pattern of growth of the city, future prospects and projected population, current policies of Central and State Government. Drawing the attention of the court to the Jaipur Master Development Plan-2025, learned AG submitted that the notified area in the plan is divided in three basic parts; (i) Urbanized area (existing developed area), (ii) Urbanisable area and (iii) Peripheral area termed as green belt/peripheral control belt/ecological area or rural belt. Drawing the attention of the court to the Jaipur Master Development Plan-2025, learned AG submitted that the notified area in the plan is divided in three basic parts; (i) Urbanized area (existing developed area), (ii) Urbanisable area and (iii) Peripheral area termed as green belt/peripheral control belt/ecological area or rural belt. Learned AG submitted that area immediately adjoining the urbanisable area is very much susceptible to unorganized/unplanned growth and therefore, to arrest undesirable and unplanned growth on the periphery of urbanisable area and to ensure orderly and planned development in concise form and coordinate manner in the urbanisable area, it is necessary to put control on the development which may take place in the immediate periphery and for this purpose a control belt is provided around the urbanisable area, which is termed as periphery control belt. Learned AG urged that the growth and development of the towns are guided by various factors such as, change in Government policies and investment, social habits of the society and number of natural or man made unforeseen reasons. Learned AG would submit that the peripheral control belt area/ecological area/rural area in the Master Development Plan is never proposed for developing as green area to serve as 'lung space' for the city. It is submitted that basically peripheral area, predominately agriculture in nature, is under the private ownership. Learned AG urged that no plan can be rigid and the certain degree of flexibility is always necessary to accommodate the changes and therefore, during the operation of the Master Development Plan and while preparing the new Master Development Plan for extension of the city and when the need arises for city development, the said area can always be used for planned development. Learned AG would submit that the contention sought to be raised that the land falling within the periphery belt cannot be put to any use other than specified under Master Development Plan, is absolutely fallacious. Learned AG submitted that the changes in the Master Development Plans are effected as per the procedure laid down under the law after taking into consideration the objections/ suggestions made by public at large. Learned AG submitted that the changes in the Master Development Plans are effected as per the procedure laid down under the law after taking into consideration the objections/ suggestions made by public at large. Drawing the attention of this court to the provisions of Section 21 & 25 of Act No.25 of 1982 and Section 73B of the UIT Act and Section 162 of the Act No.18 of 2009, learned AG submitted that the provisions incorporated provide sufficient checks and balances on exercise of the power by the State Government and other authorities to allow subsequent change of land use in the Master Development Plan. Referring to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982, learned AG submitted that as per provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25, JDA is empowered to make only those modifications in the plan, which do not affect material alterations in the character of the plan and do not relate to the extent of the land uses or the standards of the population density. Learned AG submitted that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25, other modifications in the Master Development Plan can be effected by the JDA only with the approval of the State Government. However, the learned AG submitted that in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2a) of Section 25, the JDA or the authority or the Nagar Nigam or any other body or committee authorised by the State Government may make modification in the land use plan, as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette independent of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25. Learned AG submitted that before making modification to the plan, the authority concerned is required to publish a notice inviting objections and the objections and suggestions made are mandatorily required to be considered by the JDA. Learned AG submitted that by virtue of Section 28 of the Act No.25 of 1982, the State Government is empowered to revise the plan if necessary even during its operative period. Learned AG submitted that by virtue of Section 28 of the Act No.25 of 1982, the State Government is empowered to revise the plan if necessary even during its operative period. Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 162 of the Act No.18 of 2009, learned AG submitted that under the said provision the municipality is empowered to make any modification to the Plan with the prior approval of the State Government, which in its opinion do not affect material alterations in the character of the Plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of the population density. It is submitted that even under Section 73B(2) of the UIT Act, the State Government or any authority authorised by it, is empowered to permit the change of land use as specified only if it is satisfied so to do in the public interest. Learned AG would submit that the provisions incorporated provides for sufficient guidance and therefore, the question of misuse of the power does not arise. Learned AG submitted that of course, the natural resources such as hills, notified forest, river, lake etc. cannot be disturbed while preparing the Master Development Plan or modifying the same. Learned AG submitted that whether the modification made in the Master Development Plan amounts to material alteration depends on facts and circumstances of each case and therefore, no fixed parameters can be laid down by this court in this regard. Learned AG submitted that the Master Development Plan is not a static document, which cannot be altered and therefore, State Government and its authorities empowered under the Act to make modification in the Master Development Plan cannot be restrained from exercising the statutory power vested in them. In support of the contention, learned AG has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Pune Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Promoters and Builders Association and another', AIR 2004 SC 3502 . Learned AG submitted that the letter petition does not point out any specific deviation of the Master Development Plan and thus, on the basis of the omnibus allegations, no conclusion can be drawn that the wholesale change in the land use has been effected in violation of Master Development Plan. Learned AG submitted that the letter petition does not point out any specific deviation of the Master Development Plan and thus, on the basis of the omnibus allegations, no conclusion can be drawn that the wholesale change in the land use has been effected in violation of Master Development Plan. Learned AG submitted that ordinarily the Court cannot substitute its decision for that of the planning authority, permitting change of the land use during the operative period of the Master Development Plan, taking into consideration the relevant factors, unless an appropriate case is made out therefor. In support of the contention, learned AG has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others' (2006) 3 SCC 434. Drawing the attention of the court to the report submitted on behalf of the State Government giving details of the change in the land use permitted, learned AG submitted that small percentage of change in the land use effected, by no stretch of imagination, could be construed as wholesale change of the land use. Learned AG urged that the reduction in the forest area does not relate to area covered by Master Development Plan. Drawing the attention of this court to sub-section (2) of Section 73B of the UIT Act, learned AG submitted that the change in the land use as specified therein, is permissible only when the State Government authorises the authority to allow the change of use if it is satisfied so to do in the public interest and therefore, no change in the land use is permitted unless the change proposed is found to be in public interest. Learned AG submitted that what would be in the public interest is not required to be expressly provided in the provision but such guidelines can be gathered from the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Learned AG submitted that whether particular change of the land use is in public interest or not, is required to be decided by the authority concerned. In support of the contention, learned AG has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Premium Granites and another Vs. State of T.N. and others' (1994) 2 SCC 691. In support of the contention, learned AG has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Premium Granites and another Vs. State of T.N. and others' (1994) 2 SCC 691. Learned AG submitted that the modification of the plan in terms of provisions of Section 25 of Act No.25 of 1982, is permissible in order to promote the planned development of any part of Jaipur region in more efficient manner and therefore, obviously, the power shall be exercised thereunder for accomplishment of the specified object. In support of the contention, learned AG has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Hotel Sea Gull Vs. State of West Bengal and others' AIR 2002 SC 1506 . Relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Mangal Amusement Park Private Limited and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others' (2012) 11 SCC 713 , learned AG submitted that unless a decision of the authority permitting the change of the land use in exercise of statutory power is found to be actuated by malafides or suffering from vice of colourable exercise of power, the same should not be interfered with by the Court. Learned AG submitted that no details regarding alleged wholesale deviations from the Master Development Plan is furnished by the petitioners and therefore, on the basis of vague and indefinite pleading, there is no reason why this Court should enter into a roving and fishing enquiry into the questions of facts. In support of the contention, learned AG relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the matter of 'State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another' (2011) 7 SCC 639 . 42. Dr.P.S.Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Master Development Plan is a vision document to guide for next 20-25 years, but to cope up with the pace of urban development due to unanticipated and unprecedented technological changes and economical development, every Master Development Plan requires updating and renewing in order to incorporate new requirements. Learned AAG while reiterating the submissions made by learned AG on behalf of the State, submitted that the peripheral control belt/green belt/ecological or rural area, are predominately rural/agriculture area provided for control of haphazard development. Learned AAG while reiterating the submissions made by learned AG on behalf of the State, submitted that the peripheral control belt/green belt/ecological or rural area, are predominately rural/agriculture area provided for control of haphazard development. Learned AAG would submit that peripheral control belt/green belt/ecological or rural area is also part of the region where the Development Authority constituted under the statute is empowered to undertake planned development and therefore, the modification/change of the land use in the area shown in the Master Development Plan as peripheral control belt/green belt/ecological or rural area, is always permissible in conformity with the statutory provisions governing the modification of the Master Development Plan during its operative period. Learned AAG submitted that while effecting the modifications in the Master Development Plan, the natural features such as, hills, forests, water bodies etc. are never touched and cannot be disturbed. Learned AAG would submit that even the open spaces provided in the Master Development Plan for parks and other recreational facilities for the public also cannot be permitted to be disturbed while modifying the plan. Learned AAG submitted that with the increase in the population and the change in the pattern of urban development, to meet the need of the time, the required changes in the operational Master Development Plan, cannot be avoided. Learned AAG would submit that taking into consideration the population density in the city, the minimum green area is required to be maintained but then, on that account, the change in the land use in the green belt shown in the Master Development Plan, which is nothing but the peripheral control belt, cannot be ceased altogether. Learned AAG would submit that while operating the Master Development Plan and revising the same, the State shall ensure that minimum green area required as per the population density of the city/town in conformity with the norms laid down by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India under Urban and Regional Development Plans Formulation & Implementation Guidelines, 2014 (“URDPFI Guidelines, 2014”), is maintained. Learned AAG submitted that the “lung spaces” for the residents of the city cannot be far away from the residential area and therefore, the contention raised by the Amicus Curiae that the periphery control belt or the green belt notified are the “lung spaces” for the residents of the city, is absolutely misconceived. Learned AAG submitted that the “lung spaces” for the residents of the city cannot be far away from the residential area and therefore, the contention raised by the Amicus Curiae that the periphery control belt or the green belt notified are the “lung spaces” for the residents of the city, is absolutely misconceived. Learned AAG submitted that with the increase of population, urbanisable area in the Master Development Plan has to be increased and the development of a particular city has to be in continuum and therefore, there is no logic in keeping one kilometer buffer zone around the old development before allowing the new planned development as proposed by learned Amicus Curiae. Learned AAG submitted that while modifying or revising the Master Development Plan, the area which falls within forest notified area is never touched. Learned AAG submitted that the State has no objection if the matter with regard to change of the land use in peripheral control belt during the operative period of the Master Development Plan is directed to be dealt with by the State Level Committee to be constituted by the State Government. Learned AAG would submit that open spaces shown in the Master Development Plan reserved for park, playgrounds, recreational activities and other common facilities, have to be preserved and therefore, the land use of such open spaces, if any changed, shall be restored in accordance with law. Learned AAG submitted that water bodies, catchment area, high flood area/wetlands have to be preserved at any cost and therefore, the State Authorities shall take the appropriate steps to undone such change of the land use, if any. Learned AAG candidly submitted that the roads and footpath have to be kept open for the use of public at large and therefore, the encroachment made on footpath and the public way by putting stairs, ramp, hoardings or fencing for the purpose of lawn etc. shall be dealt with strictly and all encroachments made in the various cities on footpath and road, shall be removed. Learned AAG submitted that the parking places provided in the sanctioned plan, cannot be put to use for any other purpose and therefore, the Local Authorities are under an obligation to take appropriate measures for restoration of parking places provided in the commercial and residential buildings. Learned AAG submitted that the parking places provided in the sanctioned plan, cannot be put to use for any other purpose and therefore, the Local Authorities are under an obligation to take appropriate measures for restoration of parking places provided in the commercial and residential buildings. Drawing the attention of this court to the draft Urban Development Scheme Policy-2015, learned AAG submitted that the said Scheme to be finalized by the State shall cover all types of small and larger Schemes for various uses including residential, commercial, institutional and industrial and other uses. Learned AAG would submit that there is a paramount need to involve private sector in the city development and therefore, appropriate provisions are sought to be incorporated for monitoring development of the colonies by the private developers as well. Learned AAG submitted that in order to encourage larger Scheme with the higher space for social and physical infrastructure, in the policy a concept to incremental saleable area on larger Scheme while maintaining the suitable proportion of facility area, is proposed. Learned AAG submitted that in the policy sought to be framed to encourage compact development, it is proposed for phasing out selected zones/sectors/areas for the phased development in different directions so that there is concerted effort from all the stake holders to develop the areas, however, approval outside the phase development zone, can also be permitted in certain cases such as, development of Integrated Residential Township after ensuring that the infrastructure such as, roads, water and electricity supply are provided by the developer and for which certificate certifying the availability of service shall be mandatory. Learned AAG would submit that taking into consideration the population increase and the requirement of various town, the colony coming up in smaller area cannot be stopped as suggested by Amicus Curiae. Learned AAG submitted that to discourage the colonies coming up in small area, the saleable area is proposed to be reduced. Learned AAG submitted that it cannot be disputed that some constructions are coming up without sanction of the Local Authority and in deviation of the building plan approved but the compounding of illegal construction is governed by the Rules framed in this regard and is not permitted as a matter of course. Learned AAG submitted that it cannot be disputed that some constructions are coming up without sanction of the Local Authority and in deviation of the building plan approved but the compounding of illegal construction is governed by the Rules framed in this regard and is not permitted as a matter of course. Learned AAG fairly submitted that to ensure the construction of the buildings and the provision of facility areas therein, enforcement cell of the local bodies needs to be strengthened and for that purpose, learned AAG has suggested the measures to be taken as under: “(1) Whole urban area be divided into zones of manageable sizes. (2) For each zone a building inspector or junior engineer shall be designated. Copies of all the approved building plans and scheme layout plans shall be sent to him immediately after approval. (3) A report in writing in prescribed format shall be submitted by the designated in charge of the zone, stating the list of plots/area where construction is going on, list in which construction is as per approval and list of violation during the construction in their zone with details of violations and photographs. A register of such reports shall also be maintained. (4) Such reports shall be submitted to Zone Commissioner and JDC in case of Development Authority, Secretary, UIT and to Deputy Secretary UDH in case of UIT's, and to EO Municipality and Deputy Director Local Bodies in case of Municipalities in every 15 days (twice in a month). (5) On receipt of these reports action shall be initiated against the violations by the concerned authorities, which should be monitored regularly by higher authorities. Action taken report monthly shall also be submitted to higher authority regularly. (6) Every local body should operate a citizen grievances link on its website, on which citizens may send report of violations. Action taken on such public grievances shall also be put on public domain.” 43. Learned AAG would submit that the minor deviation in the set backs and the height of the buildings have to be permitted in the larger public interest. Action taken on such public grievances shall also be put on public domain.” 43. Learned AAG would submit that the minor deviation in the set backs and the height of the buildings have to be permitted in the larger public interest. Learned AAG submitted that the multi storey buildings in the existing residential/commercial areas are permitted as per the norms laid down regarding the set backs, FAR, height of the building and park spaces and therefore, it does not stand to reason that such buildings should not be permitted to come up in the existing residential and commercial areas specified in the Master Development Plan. Learned AAG submitted that all sincere efforts shall be made by the State for restoration of the use of the parks and other common utility spaces put to use for other purposes in the private residential colonies as well. Learned AAG candidly submitted that the norms laid down for providing green belt on both the sides of the highways have to be followed and therefore, the appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure the implementation of the norms and for removal of the constructions, if any raised, in violation of the norms but the strip of the land on both sides of the highways are generally privately owned land and therefore, it is not desirable to declare such land as forest land. Regarding the preservation of pasture land, learned AAG submitted that Section 16 of the Act of 1955, prohibits accrual of khatedari rights in pasture land but then, as per Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955, the Collector is empowered to change the classification of any pasture land for allotment for agriculture or non agriculture purposes, however, as per proviso to Rule 7, in case where land sought to be allotted or set apart exceeds 4 hectares, the Collector is required to obtain prior permission of the State Government. That apart, it is submitted that as per mandates of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 where classification of any pasture land is changed under sub- Rule (1), the Collector may set apart an equal area of unculturable Government land, if available as pasture land in the same village. Learned AAG would submit that setting apart of an equal area of unculturable Government land in lieu of pasture land put to other use in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7, is not mandatory. Learned AAG would submit that setting apart of an equal area of unculturable Government land in lieu of pasture land put to other use in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7, is not mandatory. Learned AAG submitted that the restriction imposed under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955, do not apply to the land falling within Jaipur Region, Jodhpur Region and Ajmer Region, the development wherein is governed by the provisions of Act No.25 of 1982, the Act No.2 of 2009 and Act No.39 of 2013. 44. Mr. P.P. Choudhary, Senior Advocate, drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 16, 17, 21, 23 & 25 of the Act No.2 of 2009, submitted that the Master Development Plan prepared by the authorities in exercise of the statutory power is only a macro planning, a vision document, which is flexible and it is always permissible to modify the same to secure integrated development with the passage of time. Learned counsel submitted that the statute empowers JDA and Jodhpur Development Authority to undertake urban planning including the preparation of Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plans and carrying out surveys for the purpose and also making alterations therein as may be deemed necessary and therefore, the statutory power of local authority to alter the plan cannot be seized by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the legislative competence to frame the law or the vires of the provision providing for alteration of the Master Development Plan whenever it is deemed necessary is not under challenge and therefore, no direction can be issued by this Court, restraining the State and the local authorities from exercising power under the statute. Learned counsel drawing the attention of this Court to the letter petition and the documents annexed thereto, submitted that no research work has been undertaken by the petitioner before filing the petition and there is no material on record suggesting that there is a wholesale violation of the Master Development Plans of the major cities and therefore, the PIL preferred must not be entertained by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the contention raised that the ecological zone/green belt/peripheral belt earmarked in the Master Development Plan cannot be divested for any other use is misconceived, to say the least. Learned counsel submitted that the contention raised that the ecological zone/green belt/peripheral belt earmarked in the Master Development Plan cannot be divested for any other use is misconceived, to say the least. Learned counsel would urge that the Master Development Plans are prepared taking into consideration the present and future requirement and therefore, if to fulfill the future requirement for overall development, the land is required to be diverted for the purposes other than specified, the State and its authorities cannot be restrained from exercising the powers in this regard and therefore, the interim order passed by this Court, restraining the State and the local authorities from effecting any change in ecological zone and periphery belt including green belt without permission of the Court deserves to be vacated. 45. Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel submitted that the Mater Plan is not a inflexible document, which cannot be altered for the public purpose. Learned counsel would submit that the Master Development Plan is prepared for the purposes specified after following the procedure laid down and by virtue of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 21 of Act No.25 of 1982 and Act No.2 of 2009, but, the area of any zone specified therein, can always be altered in the public interest. Learned counsel submitted that modification for a class or section is different than the modification for any individual and certainly the modification of the Master Development Plan cannot be made to serve the purpose of an individual. Learned counsel would submit that various provisions incorporated in Chapter V of the JDA Act, which deals with Master Development and Zonal Development Plans must be harmoniously construed and the modification of Master Development Plan for the purpose other than those specified in the larger public interest, should always be permitted inasmuch as the problems arising during the course of implementation of plan are also required to be taken care of and cannot be ignored. Learned counsel submitted that the peripheral belt specified in the Master Development Plan is certainly not a “No Construction Zone” and the use thereof is not specified either and therefore, any modification therein proposed must be considered with reference to the object of the modification. Learned counsel submitted that a particular activity of an individual to serve the public at large may fall within the definition of “Public Purpose”. Learned counsel submitted that a particular activity of an individual to serve the public at large may fall within the definition of “Public Purpose”. Learned counsel would submit that undoubtedly, the power conferred under Section 25 of Act No.25 of 1982 and Section 25 of the Act No.2 of 2009, has to be exercised by the authority concerned rationally and reasonably and the material alteration cannot be permitted to affect the basic character of the plan as such. Learned counsel urged that the change of land use for educational and medical facilities purposes do fall within the definition of “Public Purpose”. 46. Replying the arguments of learned AG, AAG and the counsels for the applicants, learned amicus curiae, while referring to the reply of the State submitted that the factum of deviations from the Master Development Plan without authority of law is not even disputed by the respondents rather the respondents have taken the stand that unless the general civic sense is developed in the public at large and the public is made aware that the deviation from the Master Development Plan is not in their interest, without active cooperation of the public at large, the respondents are not happily equipped with the measures and means to control such deviation. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the stand sought to be taken by the respondents that there is no concept of green belt in the Master Development Plan of the various towns and the peripheral control belt indicated in the Master Development Plans are commonly called as green belt is contrary to the known concept of Town Planning. Learned amicus curiae drawing the attention of the court to the compliance reports submitted by the State of Rajasthan in respect of the cities Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner, Ajmer and Udaipur, submitted that the factum of change of land uses in peripheral control belt and the public amenities zones and the factum of construction or development which have actually taken place in respect of the said zones also stand admitted by the State. Learned amicus curiae while drawing attention to the submissions of the respondents, JDA, Jaipur, submitted that indisputably, the ecological zone delineated in the JDA Region on both the sides of National Highway 11, leading to Agra up to Agra Railway Line, being the area in Aravali Range, only the activities which are eco friendly such as recreation and health resort, sports complex etc. are permitted therein and the area has to remain predominately green area, yet the change of the land use is permitted in the ecological zone with impunity. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the change of the land use in the towns in respect whereof the Master Plan is prepared under the provisions of UIT Act, the change of the land use are permitted even at the local authority level and thus, the Master Plan prepared after due deliberation is set at naught by the local authority concerned on consideration of the applications preferred by the individuals for change of the land use even for small plots without there being any development plan prepared in respect of the land falling within the periphery control belt. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Summary of change of land use in ecological/rural/periphery control belt/open spaces reserved for park and other common facilities, submitted by JDAs/UITs, learned amicus curiae submitted that the permission have been granted for the change of land use to serve the interest of the individuals without there being any involvement of public interest and thus, the change of the land use permitted in perfunctory manner in gross violation of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982, deserves to be undone and the original position of the land as specified in the Master Development Plans deserve to be restored. Learned amicus curiae submitted that while admitting the construction being raised in deviation of the Master Development Plan not a single case is pointed out wherein the action is taken against the violator and the illegal construction raised is demolished, rather such constructions raised are being regularised as a matter of course. Learned amicus curiae submitted that when the modification of the plan is permissible only in the public interest, the impact of modification proposed on public in general must be examined and no change of land use can be permitted to serve the interest of an individual. Learned amicus curiae submitted that when the modification of the plan is permissible only in the public interest, the impact of modification proposed on public in general must be examined and no change of land use can be permitted to serve the interest of an individual. In support of the contention, learned amicus curiae has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of “Administrator Nagar Palika Vs. Bharat and Others ” (2001) 9 SCC 232 and “M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others”, (2006) 3 SCC 399 . Learned amicus curiae submitted that the public has right to expect certain lands and natural area to retain their natural characteristics and the “Doctrine of Public Trust” evolved demands that the resources like air, sea, waters and the forests cannot be diverted to other use and the same cannot be made subject of private ownership and thus, the diversion of such lands and resources permitted has to be undone. In support of the contention, learned amicus curiae has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamalnath”, 1997 (1) SCC 388 . Learned amicus curiae would submit that if the change of land use in peripheral control belt is to be permitted, it should be permitted only at the level of State Government and the strict guidelines must be provided for the purpose of exercise of the powers. Learned amicus curiae while reiterating the submissions earlier made submitted that no private colony should be permitted to come up on the small piece of land and the minimum area required for developing a colony should not be less than 100 hectares. Learned amicus curiae would submit that all the details regarding a private colony/residential building proposed to be developed by the private developers must be uploaded on the website of the local authority concerned. Learned amicus curiae would submit that it is a matter of common knowledge that the land reserved in the layout plan of the private residential colony or the spaces provided in the residential/commercial building for parking and other common facilities of the residents are being converted by the private developers for their own use with an intention to earn undue profit and therefore, it is expedient that appropriate directions are issued to restore the position of such spaces reserved for the purposes specified forthwith. Learned amicus curiae submitted that no multistorey buildings should be permitted to come up in the residential colonies already developed with the sewerage system and other facilities to serve the projected population to be settled therein. Learned amicus curiae submitted that as per the provisions of Act No.25 of 1982 and Act No.2 of 2009 and the Act No.18 of 2009, no construction is permissible to be raised without permission and there is no reason as to why the compounding of illegal construction should be at all permitted. Learned amicus curiae submitted that if compounding is permitted as a matter of course, no person will follow the law. Learned amicus curiae submitted that this Court can examine the validity of law suo moto. Learned amicus curiae submitted that since the Rules of 1966, confers unbridled power in the hands of the local authority, the same deserves to be declared ultra vires of the provisions of Act of 2009. 47. Having considered the rival submissions, the principal questions arising for consideration of this Court in these PILs, may be summarised thus: (1) What is the ambit and scope of the power of the State Government and the other authorities under the relevant statutes as regard to preparation of the Master Development Plan & Zonal Development Plan and modification/revision thereof during their operative period ? (2) Whether the peripheral control belt/green belt/ecological zone, as the case may be, specified in the notified Master Development Plan, a statutory instrument, form its basic character/ feature, which cannot be altered and the land forming part thereof cannot be permitted to be put to other uses i.e. commercial/residential/ institutional/industrial purposes etc. during its operative period and thereafter, while revising the Master Development Plan at the end of its tenure? If the alteration/modification therein is permissible, what are the parameters therefor ? (3) Whether the authorities entrusted with the task of revision/modification of Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan can do away with/alter the minimum requirement of green area/open spaces/parks/ recreational area as provided for under the Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan with reference to the population at the relevant time and projected increase therein and put the same to the use for the purposes other than those specified during its operative period ? (4) Whether the area reserved for common facilities/parks/open spaces/recreation etc. (4) Whether the area reserved for common facilities/parks/open spaces/recreation etc. in a colony developed by local authority or by private developers approved by the local authority, can be diverted to any other use? Whether the changes, if any, made in area reserved as aforesaid in the approved layout plan of the colony, deserves to be undone and the position as per the original layout plan, deserves to be restored ? (5) Whether the area earmarked in the Scheme under the Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan for the purposes of commercial/residential/ institutional/ industrial etc., can be put to use for the purposes other than those specified, during the currency of the Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan or at the time of revision of the Master Development Plan ? (6) Whether the area for the purpose of developing the multi-storey buildings in the city, needs to be distinctly marked in the Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan and no multi-storey building should be permitted to come up in the existing residential colonies developed with the infrastructure, keeping in view the individual family units to be settled in the houses to be constructed in such colonies? (7) Whether the private or public colony can be permitted to come up on the land having area less than the reasonable area required for developing a colony with requisite facilities? (8) Whether the industrial areas located in the close vicinity of the city settlements need to be shifted outside the urbanisable area shown in the Master Development Plan ? (9) Whether the norms laid down for providing green belt abutting the highway are not being followed by the State and the Local Authorities? What measures are required to be adopted to check the violation of the norms laid down in this regard? (10) Whether it is open to the local authorities i.e. Municipalities, Urban Development/Improvement Authorities to permit the commercial establishment and the owner of the residential houses to put stairs or ramp or hoardings on footpath/public way or to use the same for personal use, by putting fencing? Whether such encroachments made on footpath/ public way are liable to be removed? (11) Whether it is open for any person/builder to divert the use of the place meant for parking to any other use ? If not, whether all such parking spaces put to other use are required to be restored ? Whether such encroachments made on footpath/ public way are liable to be removed? (11) Whether it is open for any person/builder to divert the use of the place meant for parking to any other use ? If not, whether all such parking spaces put to other use are required to be restored ? (12) Whether the provisions incorporated under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Compounding and Compromising of the Offences) Rules, 1966 are in consonance with the provisions as well as Scheme of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009? If the compounding of the unauthorised construction raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan or without approval of the plan and/or Building Bye-laws deserves to be permitted by way of an exception, then to what extent ? (13) Whether provisions of 33A of Act No.25 of 1982, Section 34 of the Act No.2 of 2009 and Section 34 of Act No.39 of 2013, regarding the regularisation of unauthorised development, in absence of guidelines for exercising of the powers conferred, deserve to be declared ultra vires? (14) Whether the pasture land set apart for the grazing of the cattles can be permitted to be used for other purposes? If yes, to what extent ? Whether the encroachment made on the pasture land can be regularised or the unauthorised occupation over the pasture land must be removed by the State authorities? (15) What measures need to be taken for conservation and preservation of the land forming part of nadi, pond, lakes, river bed and catchment area etc.? CONSIDERATION & CONCLUSIONS: Preparation of the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and ambit and scope of modification/revision thereof during their operative period (Question No.1) 48. Master Development Plan is prepared with an objective to ensure systematic and planned development of a city and adjoining areas with a view to protect the residents from ill-effects of urbanisation as also to create sustainable physical and social environment for improving their quality of life. It lays down the planning, guidelines, policies, development code, space requirement for various socio economic activities supporting the city population during the plan period. As a matter of fact, Master Development Plan translates community values, decisions and visions into land use and development principles which can guide the future growth of community and decision making for planning authorities and implementation thereof by local authorities. 49. As a matter of fact, Master Development Plan translates community values, decisions and visions into land use and development principles which can guide the future growth of community and decision making for planning authorities and implementation thereof by local authorities. 49. Indisputably, the process of planned development of the cities and towns in the State of Rajasthan began with the enactment of UIT Act, which came into force w.e.f. July 24, 1959. Later, keeping in view the fact that the Jaipur City and the areas contiguous to it are being progressively developed and populated, it was felt necessary for forming these areas into Jaipur Region and for setting up an Authority for the purpose of planning, coordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of these areas as also to provide that such Authority be enable either itself or through other authority to formulate and execute plans, projects and schemes, the State Legislature enacted the Act No.25 of 1982. In the same line, for the parity of reasons, the Act No.2 of 2009 was enacted for planned and rapid development of Jodhpur Region consisting of Jodhpur City and certain contiguous areas and thereafter, Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 ('Act No.39 of 2013') has been enacted for planned development of Ajmer, Kishangarh, Pushkar City and areas contiguous thereto. The preparation and operation of the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, for the various cities of the State of Rajasthan except Jaipur Jodhpur, Ajmer, Kishangarh, Pushkar City & areas contiguous thereto and such areas which are governed by UIT Act, urban development and town planning in the cities and towns within the municipal area thereof, now, the Act No.18 of 2009, which has come into force w.e.f. 15th September, 2009 after repealing of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, incorporates specific chapter i.e. Chapter XI. 50. In order to appreciate the statutory object and purpose behind preparation of the Master Development Plan, its basic characteristic and the ambit & scope of its modification during the operative period of the plan, it would be appropriate to refer to the various provisions contained in UIT Act, the Act No. 25 of 1982, the Act No.2 of 2009, the Act No.39 of 2013 and Act No.18 of 2009. 51. 51. The provisions of the Act No.2 of 2009 and Act No.39 of 2013, relevant for the consideration of the questions arising in the matter, are pari materia to the provisions of Act No.25 of 1982 and therefore, the same are not being referred to and dealt with separately. 52. The various provisions of the UIT Act, the Act No.25 of 1982 and the Act No.18 of 2009, germane to the issues arising for consideration of this court may be beneficially quoted : UIT ACT “3. Power of State Government to order preparation of master plan-(1) The State Government may, by order, direct that in respect of and for any urban area in the State specified in the order, a civil survey shall be carried out and a master plan shall be prepared, by such officer or authority as the State Government may appoint for the purpose. (2) For the purpose of advising the officer or authority appointed under sub-section (1) on the preparation of the master plan, the State Government may constitute an advisory council consisting of a Chairman and such number of other members as the State Government may deem fit. 4. Contents of master plan-The master plan shall- (a) define the various zones into which the urban area for which the plan has been prepared may be divided for the purposes of its improvement and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used, and (b) serve as basic pattern of frame work within which the improvement schemes of the various zones may be prepared. 5. Procedure to be followed- (1) Before preparing any master plan officially the officer or authority appointed to prepare it shall public a draft of the master plan by making a copy thereof available for inspection and publishing a notice in such form and manner as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf inviting objections and suggestions from every person with respect to the draft master plan before such date as may be specified in the notice. (2) Such officer or authority shall also give reasonable opportunity to every local authority within whose local limits any land touched by the master plan is situated to make any representations with respect to the master plan. (2) Such officer or authority shall also give reasonable opportunity to every local authority within whose local limits any land touched by the master plan is situated to make any representations with respect to the master plan. (3) After considering all objections, suggestions and representations that may have been received, such officer or authority shall finally prepare the master plan. (4) Provisions may be made by rules made in this behalf with respect to the form and contents of a master plan and with respect to the procedure to be followed and any other matter in connection with the preparation of the master plan. 6. Submission of master plan to Government- (1) Every master plan shall, as soon as may be after its preparation, be submitted to the State Government for approval in the prescribed manner. (2) The State Government may direct the officer or authority appointed for the preparation of a master plan to furnish such information as it may require for the purpose of approving any master plan submitted to it under this section. (3) The State Government may either approve the master plan without modifications or with such modifications as it may consider necessary or reject it with directions for the preparation of a fresh master plan. 7. Date of operation of master plan- Immediately after a master plan has been approved by the State Government, it shall publish in the prescribed manner a notice stating that the master plan has been approved and naming a place where a copy of the same may be inspected during officer hours; and upon the date of the first publication of the aforesaid notice the master plan shall come into operation. 8. Establishment and incorporation of Trusts- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, establish, for the purpose of carrying out improvement of any urban area in the State, whether a master plan in respect thereof has or has not been prepared, a Board of Trustees to be called the Improvement Trust of the place where its principal office is shifted, hereinafter called 'the Trust'. (2) Every such Trust shall be a body corporate by the aforesaid name having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. ....xxxxx.......xxxx 31. (2) Every such Trust shall be a body corporate by the aforesaid name having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. ....xxxxx.......xxxx 31. Scheme to conform to master plan- (1) If for and in respect of the urban area for which the Trust is constituted a master plan has been prepared and approved and is in operation, every scheme framed by the Trust in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall conform to such master plan and shall not be framed so as to affect an alteration in the different zones defined by the master plan. ....xxxxx....... 73.B. Restriction on change of use of land and power of State Government to allow change in the use of land.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 72 or 73A,- (1) no person shall use or permit the use of any land situated in any urban area notified under section 8, for the purpose other than that for which such land was originally allotted or sold to any person by the State Government, any Urban Improvement Trust, any other local authority or any other body or authority in accordance with any law for the time being in force or, otherwise than as specified under a Master Plan, wherever it is in operation; (ii) In the case of any land not allotted or sold as aforesaid and not covered under clause (i), no person shall use or permit the use of any such land situated in a Urban Area notified under section 8, for the purpose other than that for which such land-use was or is permissible, in accordance with the Master Plan, wherever it is in operation, or under any law for the time being in force. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection( 1), the State Government or any authority by it, by notification in the Official Gazette, may allow the owner or holder of any such land, to have change of use thereof, it it is satisfied so to do in public interest, on payment of conversion charges at such rates and in such manner as may be prescribed with respect to the following changes in use:- (i) from residential to commercial or any other purpose ; or (ii) from commercial to any other purpose; or (iii) from industrial to commercial or any other purpose; or (iv) from cinema to commercial or any other purpose; or (v) from any existing permissible use of land to any other purposes, as the State Government may prescribe: Provided that rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes. (3) Any person who has already changed the use of land in violation of the provisions of this Act in force at the time of change of use, shall apply to the State Government or any authority authorised by it under sub-section (2), within such period as maya be prescribed, for regularisation of said use and upon regularisation of the change of use of land, he shall deposit the amount contemplated under sub-section (2). (4) Where the State Government or the authority authorised by it is satisfied that a person who ought to have applied for permission or regularisation under this section, has not applied and that such permission can be granted or the use of land can be regularised, it may proceed to determine the conversion charges after due notice and hearing the party/parties and the changes so determined shall be come due to the Urban Improvement Trust and be recoverable under subsection (6). (5) The conversion charges so realised shall be credited to fund of the Urban Improvement Trust. (6) Changes under this section shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable to pay such charges with respect to the land, the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Jaipur Development Authority Act (Act No.25 OF 1982) “16. (6) Changes under this section shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable to pay such charges with respect to the land, the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Jaipur Development Authority Act (Act No.25 OF 1982) “16. Functions of the Authority.- The main object of the Authority shall be to secure the integrated development of the Jaipur Region and for that purpose the functions of the Authority shall be :- (a) urban planning including the preparing of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans and carrying out surveys for the purpose and also making alterations therein as may be deemed necessary; (b) formulation and sanction of the projects and schemes for the development of the Jaipur Region or any part thereof; (c) execution of projects and schemes directly by itself or through a local authority or any other agency; (d) to make recommendations to the State Government on any matter or proposal requiring action by the State Government, Central Government, any local authority or any other authority for overall development of the Jaipur Region; (e) participation with any other authority for the development of the Jaipur Region; (f) co-ordinating execution of projects or schemes for the development of the Jaipur Region; (g) supervision or otherwise ensuring adequate supervision over the planning and execution of any project or scheme, the expenses of which, in whole or in part are to be met from the Jaipur Region Development Fund; (h) preparing schemes and advising the concerned authorities departments and agencies in formulating and undertaking schemes for development of agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, dairy development, transport, communication, schooling, cultural activities, sports, medicare, tourism entertainment and similar other activities; (i) execution of projects and schemes on the directions of the State Government; (j) undertaking housing activity in Jaipur Region, provided that the delineation of responsibility for housing between Rajasthan Housing Board and the Authority will be made by State Government effective from the date to be fixed by it; (k) to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property, movable or immovable, as it may deem necessary; (l) to enter into contracts, agreements or arrangements with any person or organisation as the Authority may deemed necessary for performing its functions; (m) to prepare Master Plan for traffic control and management, devise policy and programme of action for smooth flow of traffic and matters connected therewith; (n) to perform functions designated by the State Government in the areas of urban renewal, environment and ecology, transport and communication, water energy resource management directly or through its Functional Boards or other departments/agencies as the State Government may specify; (o) regulating the posting of bills, advertisement hoardings, signpost, and name boards in Jaipur Region or in any part thereof as specified by the Authority; (p) regulating the erection or re-erection of buildings and projections, making material alterations therein and providing for open spaces in Jaipur Region or any part thereof as specified by the Authority; (q) removing obstructions and encroachments upon public streets, open spaces and properties vesting in the Government or the Authority; (r) to do all such other acts and things which may be necessary for or incidental or conducive to, any matters which arise on account of its activity and which are necessary for furtherance of the objects for which the Authority is established; and (s) to perform any other functions that the State Government may designate in furtherance of the objectives of this Act; ....xxxxx.....xxx 21. Civil Survey and preparation of Master Development Plan.-(1) The Authority with a view to securing planned integrated development and use of land, shall carryout a civic survey of and prepare a Master Development Plan for Jaipur Region. Civil Survey and preparation of Master Development Plan.-(1) The Authority with a view to securing planned integrated development and use of land, shall carryout a civic survey of and prepare a Master Development Plan for Jaipur Region. (2) The Master Development Plan shall precisely define the quality of life that a citizen of Jaipur Region could desirably be expected to lead in (i) medium range perspective of the year 1991 AD, (ii) long term perspective of the year 2001 AD and thereafter, and (iii) such other intermediate stages, as the State Government may direct, balanced and time targeted development to subserve the needs of the growing city of Jaipur and other areas of Jaipur Region, the net work of public utilities, civil amenities, community facilities, housing, communications and transport, the projects or schemes for conservation and development of natural resources and such other matters as are likely to have a bearing on the integrated development of the Jaipur Region and in particular may provide for- (i) transport and communications such as roads, high-ways, railways, canals, international air ports, air cargo-complexes and bus-service, including their development; (ii) water supply, drainage, sewarage, sewage disposal and other public utilities, amenities and services, including electricity and gas; (iii) preservation, conservation and development of areas of natural scenery, city forests, wild life, natural resources and landscaping; (iv) preservation of objects, features, structures or places of historical, natural, architectural or scientific interest and educational value; (v) prevention of erosion, provision for afforestation or re-forestation, improvement of water front areas, rivers, nallahs, lakes and tanks; (vi) irrigation, water supply of hydro-electric works, flood control and prevention of water and air pollution; (vii) educational and medical facilities; (viii)district business centres, other shopping complexes, export oriented industrial areas and clearing houses, permanent exhibition centres, cattle fairs and markets; (ix) games and sports complexes worthy of holding international events; (x) amusement parks including disney land, style complexes safari parks and other gardens and parks, picnic centres and day amusement including artificial lakes and water reservoirs; (xi) cultural complexes including theaters, cinemas, rangmanch, studios, recreation centres, conference hall complexes, concert halls, town halls and auditoria; (xii) tourist complexes including hotels and motels, car hiring servicer, organised tours and treks; (xiii) development of satellite towns in Jaipur Region and their appropriate integration with the City of Jaipur including development of new townships; (xiv) allocation of land for different uses, general distribution and general location of land and the extent which the land may be used as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, or as forests or for mineral exploitation or for other purposes; (xv) reservation of areas for open spaces, gardens, recreation centres, zoological gardens, nature-reserves, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts and other purposes; (xvi)the relocation of the population or industry from over populated and industrially congested areas and indicating the density of population or the concentration of industry to be allowed in any area of Jaipur Region; (xvii) housing including rural housing; (xviii) filling up or reclamation of low lying, swampy or un-healthy areas or levelling up of lands; (xix) re-development and improvement of existing built-up areas; (xx) planning standards and zoning regulations for different zones including development of 'abadi'; and (xxi) planning for Jaipur Region for management or urban growth and all matters connected therewith and other matters as are consistent with the object of this Act. (3) The Master Development Plan may also define the various zones into which the Jaipur Region shall be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which the development is to be carried out and the land in each zone is proposed to be used (whether by the carrying out therein development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development shall be carried out and shall serve as a basic pattern of frame-work within which the Zonal Development Plans of the various zones may be prepared: Provided that the Authority may, if so considers necessary in the public interest after the area of any zone. 22. Zonal Development Plan- (1) Simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Development Plan or as soon as may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of a Zonal Development Plan for each of the Zone into which the Jaipur Region may be divided. 22. Zonal Development Plan- (1) Simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Development Plan or as soon as may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of a Zonal Development Plan for each of the Zone into which the Jaipur Region may be divided. (2) A Zonal Development Plan may- (a) contain the provision for the developmental activities to be carried out as mentioned in sub section (2) of section 21; (b) contain a site-plan for the development of the zone and show the approximate locations and extents of land uses proposed in the zone for such things as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools, hospitals, public and private open spaces and other categories of public and private uses; (c) specify the standards of population density and building density; (d) show every area in the zone which may, in the opinion of the Authority, by required or declared for development or redevelopment; and (e) 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 land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes; (iii) the development of any area into a township or colony and the restrictions and conditions subject to which such development may be undertaken or carried out; (iv) the erection of buildings 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 erection of buildings and the person or authority by whom or at whose expense such amenities are to be provided; (ix) the prohibitions or restrictions regarding erection of shops, workshops, warehouses or factories or buildings of a specified architectural feature or buildings designed for particular, purposes in the locality; (x) the maintenance of walls, fences, hedges or any other structural or architectural construction and the height at which they shall be maintained; (xi) the restrictions regarding the use of any 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. Procedure to be followed in the preparation and sanction of Plans- (1) Before preparing any Plan finally the Authority shall prepare a Plan in draft and publish it by making a copy thereof available for inspection and publishing a notice in such form and manner as may be determined by regulations inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the draft Plan before such date as may be specified in the notice. (2) The Authority shall also give reasonable opportunity to every local authority within whose local limits any land touched by the Plan is situated, to make any representation with respect to the Plan. (3) After considering all objections, suggestions and representations that may have been received by the Authority, the Authority shall finally sanction the Plan. (4) Provisions may be made by regulations with respect to the form and content of a Plan and with respect to the procedure to be followed and any other matter, in connection with the preparation and sanction of such plan. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) to (4), the procedure as laid down in the said sub-sections shall not be required to be followed in case the development of any project or scheme or any improvement thereof, in any zone is to be carried out on any land vested in the Authority. 25. Subsequent modification of Plans-(1) At any time after a Plan has come into operation according to provisions of section 24, the Authority may make any modification to the Plan as it thinks fit, the modifications, which in its opinion, do not affect material alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density. (2) The Authority with the approval of the State Government may make any other modifications into the plan in order to promote Planned development of any part of the Jaipur Region in more efficient manner. (2-a) The Authority or the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, or any other body or Committee, as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf, may, in order to promote planned development of any part of the Jaipur Region in more efficient manner, make such modifications in land use of the Plan for such area, as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette. (3) Before making any modification to the Plan, Authority, (Nagar Nigam, or any other body or Committee) shall publish a notice, in such form and manner as may be determined by regulation inviting objection before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Authority, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur or any other body or Committee. (4) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published and the modification shall come into operation either on the date of publication or on such date as the Authority (Nagar Nigam, Jaipur or any other body or Committee) may fix by notice published in the official Gazette whereupon the modified plan shall come into operation to all intents and for all purposes of this Act. ...xxxx......xxx 28. Review of Plan- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government or the Authority at any time within ten years from the date on which a Plan comes into operation under this act is of the opinion that the revision of such Plan is necessary, the State Government may direct the Authority to revise or the Authority, may of its own motion undertaken, revision of, such Plan, after carrying out, if necessary fresh civic survey and preparing an existing land use map of the Jaipur Region and the reupon the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to the revision of such Plan as those provisions apply in relation to the preparation, publication and sanction of a Plan. Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (the Act No.18 of 2009) 160. Procedure to be followed in the preparation and sanction of Plan.- (1) Before preparing any plan finally the Municipality shall prepare a Plan in draft and publish it by making a copy thereof available for inspection and publishing a notice in such form and manner as may be determined by bye-laws inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the draft Plan before such date as may be specified in the notice. (2) The Municipality may, if it considers appropriate, constitute an Advisory Committee consisting of the following to consider the draft plan before it is given a final shape:- (i) All members of the Municipality; (ii) Representatives of associations of industry, commerce and trade and professions; (iii) Six representatives from academic institutions located in the city: (iv) Six representatives from prominent Non-Government-Organizations located in the city; and (v) Six any other prominent citizens of the city. (3) After considering all objections, suggestions, representations and recommendations of the advisory committee, if any, the Municipality shall send the Plan to the State Government for approval and after receipt of the approval of the State Government finally sanction the Plan. (4) Provisions may be made by bye-laws with respect to the form and content of a Plan and with respect to the procedure to be followed and any other matter, in connection with the preparation and sanction of such Plan. ...........xxxxxx............ 162. Subsequent modification of Plans.- (1) At any time after a Plan has come into operation according to provisions of section 161, the Muncipality may, with the prior approval of the State Government, make any modification to the Plan as it thinks fit, the modifications, which in its opinion, do not affect material alterations in the character of the Plan and which do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density. (2) Before making any modification to the Plan, the Municipality shall publish a notice, inviting objections before such date as may be specified in the notice and shall consider all objections and suggestions that may be received by the Municipality. (3) Every modification made under the provisions of this section shall be published and the modification shall come into operation either on the date of publication or on such date as the Municipality may fix by notice published in the Official Gazette whereupon the modified Plan shall come into operation to all intents and for all purposes of this Act. (4) Upon coming into operation of any modified Plan, any reference in any other section, except in the foregoing sections of this Chapter, to the Master Development Plan or any other plan, shall be construed as a reference to the Master Development Plan or, as the case may be other plan, as modified under the provisions of this section. (4) Upon coming into operation of any modified Plan, any reference in any other section, except in the foregoing sections of this Chapter, to the Master Development Plan or any other plan, shall be construed as a reference to the Master Development Plan or, as the case may be other plan, as modified under the provisions of this section. (5) No modification of the Plan shall be made under this section until and unless it is finally approved by the State Government. .....xxxxxx......... 164. Plans prepared prior to this Act deemed to have been prepared under this Act.- Any Master Development Plan prepared under the provisions of any other law for the time being in force prior to the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to have been prepared under the provision of this Act, to which the provisions of the foregoing sections relating to the sanction, modification and operation of Master Plan/Master Development Plan shall mutatis mutandis apply: Provided that any Master Development Plan sanctioned for the Municipality under any other provisions of law shall cease to operate as soon as a Plan is sanctioned under the provisions of this Act. 165. Review of Plan.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government or the Municipality at any time within ten years from the date on which a Plan comes into operation under this Act is of the opinion that the revision of such Plan is necessary, the State Government may direct the Municipality to revise or the Municipality may of its own motion undertake revision of such Plan after carrying out, if necessary, fresh civic survey and preparing an existing land use map and thereupon the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to the revision of such Plan as those provisions apply in relation to the preparation, publication and sanction of a Plan. 166. Declaration of Development Areas.- (1) As soon as may be after a plan comes into operation as provided in section 161, the Municipality may, with the approval of the State Government and by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any area in the city to be a development area for the purpose of this Act. 166. Declaration of Development Areas.- (1) As soon as may be after a plan comes into operation as provided in section 161, the Municipality may, with the approval of the State Government and by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any area in the city to be a development area for the purpose of this Act. (2) On or after the date on which notification under sub-section (1) is published in the Official Gazette, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land without the permission in writing of the Municipality: Provided that, no such permission shall be necessary- (i) for carrying out works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the external appearance thereof; (ii) the carrying out of works in compliance with any order or direction made by any authority under any law for the time being in force; (iii) the carrying out of works by the Municipality in exercise of its powers under any law for the time being in force; (iv) for the carrying out by the Central or the State Government or any local authority of any works- (a) required for the maintenance or improvement of a highway, road or public street, being works carried out on land within the boundaries of such highway, road or public street; and (b) for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any drains, sewers, mains, pipes, cable, telephone or other apparatus; (v) for the excavation (including wells) made in the ordinary course of agricultural operation; (vi) for the construction of a road intended to give access to land solely for agricultural purposes; (vii) for normal use of land which has been used temporarily for other purposes; and (viii) in case of land, normally used for one purpose and occasionally used for any other purpose, for the use of land for that other purpose on occasion. 53. As noticed hereinabove, in the first instance, to regulate the improvement and expansion of urban areas in the State of Rajasthan, UIT Act was enacted, which came into force w.e.f. 24th July, 1959. Chapter II of UIT Act deals with preparation of Master Plan, its contents and procedure to be followed before preparing any Master Plan. 54. 53. As noticed hereinabove, in the first instance, to regulate the improvement and expansion of urban areas in the State of Rajasthan, UIT Act was enacted, which came into force w.e.f. 24th July, 1959. Chapter II of UIT Act deals with preparation of Master Plan, its contents and procedure to be followed before preparing any Master Plan. 54. Section 3 of the UIT Act, empowers the State Government to issue the order directing that in respect of and for any urban area in the State specified in the order, a civic survey shall be carried out and a Master Plan shall be prepared by such officer or authority as the State Government may appoint for the purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 3, empowers the State Government to constitute an advisory council consisting of Chairman and such number of other members, as the State Government may deem fit to advise the officer or authority appointed under sub-section (1) on the preparation of Master Plan. That apart, Section 8, empowers the State Government to establish a Board of Trustees to be called Improvement Trust, a body corporate, for the purpose of carrying out improvement of any urban area in the State, whether a Master Plan in respect thereof has or has not been prepared. 55. Section 4 provides that the Master Plan to be prepared for any urban area, [Defined under Section 2(x) to mean the urban area as notified under Section 3 or as the case may be under Section 8], shall define the various zones into which urban area for which plan has been prepared may be divided for the purposes of its improvements and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used, which shall serve as basic pattern of framework within which improvement of scheme of the various zones may be prepared. 56. As per Section 5, before preparing any Master Plan officially, the officer or authority appointed to prepare it is required to publish a draft of the Master Plan by making available the copy thereof for inspection and to publish a notice inviting objections and suggestions from every person with respect to the draft Master Plan before such date as may be specified in the notice. As per the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 4, every local authority within whose local limits any land touched by Master Plan is situated is also entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make any representation with respect to the proposed Master Plan. 57. It is only after considering all objections, suggestions and representations that Master Plan is finalised and submitted for approval to the State Government as per the mandate of provisions of Section 6 of the Act, which in its turn may either approve the Master Plan with or without modification or with such modification, as it may consider necessary or reject it with the directions for preparation of fresh Master Plan. 58. Suffice it to say that the statutory obligations and democratic procedure envisaged under the UIT Act mandates that the Master Plan must be prepared after consideration of the views, suggestions and objections of the public. Once the Master Plan is prepared and brought into operation by way of publication of notice in terms of provisions of Section 7 of the UIT Act, as per mandate of provisions of Section 31 in respect of the urban area for which the Trust is constituted, every scheme framed by the Trust in accordance with the Chapter V of UIT Act shall conform to such Master Plan and shall not be framed so as to affect an alteration in different zones defined by the Master Plan. 59. Likewise, sub-section (1)(i) of Section 73B mandates that no person can use or permit the use of any land situated in any urban area notified under Section 8 for the purpose other than for which such land was originally allotted to any person by the State Government or Urban Improvement Trust, any other local authority or any other body or authority in accordance with law for the time being in force, otherwise than as specified under a Master Plan wherever it is in operation. Further, by virtue of Section 73B (1)(ii), even in cases where the land is not covered by clause (i) of Section 73B (1), no person shall use or permit to use of any such land situated in the urban area notified under Section 8 for the purposes other than for which such land use was or is permissible in accordance with the Master Plan, wherever it is in operation or under any law for the time being in force. 60. Thus, under the scheme of UIT Act, the urban areas in respect whereof Master Plan is once prepared in accordance with the procedure laid down, the sanctity thereof has to be maintained and all improvement schemes of the various zones and the development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative period of the Master Plan must conform to the land use as specified under the Master Plan. 61. It is pertinent to note that the UIT Act, does not provide for modification of the Master Plan during its operative period or the revision thereof but then, the power to frame the Master Plan inheres in it power to modify or revise it in the manner and after following the procedure as provided for preparation of the Master Plan. 62. Of course, sub-section (2) of Section 73B, a non obstante clause, empowers the State Government or any authority authorised by it by notification in official Gazette to allow the owner or holder of any land to have change of land use as specified, if it is satisfied to do so in public interest, on payment of conversion charges as specified or for regularisation of change of land use in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 73B, but then, once the Master Plan is prepared under the UIT Act for planned development of the urban area, the deviation therefrom is not permissible without modification thereof in accordance with the procedure laid down. Obviously, the change of the land use as contemplated under sub-section (2) & (3) of Section 73B in public interest cannot be permitted to be effected so as to serve the purpose of an individual, owner or holder of any such land ignoring the land use specified in the Master Plan else it is bound to lead to unplanned development, which is sought to be remedied/checked by way of the statutory document i.e. Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan, made operative under the provisions of the UIT Act. 63. Coming to the Act No.25 of 1982, it is enacted for establishing an Authority for the purposes of planning, coordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of Jaipur Region and for executing plans, projects and schemes for such development and to provide for matters connected therewith and accordingly, for the accomplishment of the statutory object, the State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3, has constituted the statutory body, JDA, which has been entrusted with the functions inter alia to undertake urban planning including the preparation of the Master Development Plan & Zonal Development Plan, carrying out surveys for the purpose, making alteration therein as may be deemed necessary and also to coordinate execution of the projects or schemes for the development of Jaipur Region and generally, to perform any other functions that the State Government may designate in furtherance of the objectives of the Act No.25 of 1982. 64. The preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plans for Jaipur Region is regulated by the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act of 1982. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act No.25 of 1982 mandates that the Authority with a view to securing planned integrated development and use of land, shall carryout a civic survey of and prepare a Master Development Plan for Jaipur Region. Subsection (2) of Section 21, mandates that the Master Development Plan shall precisely define the quality of life that a citizen of Jaipur could desirably be expected to lead in (i) medium range perspective of the year 1991 (ii) long term perspective year 2001 and thereafter and (iii) such other intermediate stages as the State Government may direct, balanced and time targeted development to subserve the needs of growing city of Jaipur and other areas of Jaipur Region. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 further lays down that the Master Plan shall provide for the matters as are likely to have bearing on integrated development of Jaipur Region and also specifies particular matters which may be provided for in the Master Plan, which include provision for preservation, conservation and development of the areas of natural scenery, city forests, wildlife, natural resources, land scapping; preservation of the objects, features, structures or places of historical, natural, architectural or scientific interest and educational value. It is specifically mandated that the Master Development Plan shall provide for allocation of land for different uses, general distribution and general location of land and to the extent to which the land may be used as residential, commercial, industrial, agriculture, as forests or for mineral exploitation or for other purposes. It is mandated that the Master Development Plan should also provide for reservation of areas for open spaces, gardens, recreation centres, zoological gardens, nature reserves, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts etc. 65. Sub-section (3) of Section 21, contemplates that the Master Development Plan may also define the various zones into which Jaipur Region shall be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which development is to be carried out and the land in each Zone is proposed to be used (whether by carrying out therein development or otherwise) and the stages by which such development shall be carried out and shall serve as a basic pattern of framework within which Zonal Development Plan of the various zones may be prepared. 66. As per mandate of Section 22, the Authority is required to proceed with preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each of the Zone into which Jaipur Region is divided, simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Development Plan or as soon as may be thereafter. As per sub-section (2) of Section 22, the Zonal Development Plan may inter alia contain a site plan for the development of the Zone and show the approximate location and extent of the land uses proposed in the Zone for such things as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, industry, business, markets, schools, hospitals, public and private open spaces, other categories of public and private uses. It is mandated that the Zonal Development Plan shall also specify the standards of population density and building density; show every area in the zone which may in the opinion of the authority, be required or declared for development or redevelopment; and in particular contain provisions regarding all or any of the matters as specified under sub-section 2(e) including the division of any site into plots for the erection of buildings; the allotment or reservation of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes; the number of residential buildings which may be erected or any plot or site as also the amenities to be provided in relation to any site or building on such site whether before or after the erection of the buildings and the person or authority by whom or at whose expense such amenities are to be provided. 67. Precisely, as per provisions of Section 21 and 22 of the Act No.25 of 1982, the Master Development Plan as also the Zonal Development Plans to be prepared for the development, has to be a comprehensive goal oriented strategy plan for overall orderly development of the Jaipur Region. As a matter of fact, the Master Development Plan must set goals and map out plans for future so clearly that it functions like a road map or blue print and guide one and all concerned regarding future development of the city. To put in other words, the Master Development Plan and the Zonal Development Plan are mandated to be self contained documents providing a long range vision, guiding the appropriate uses of the land within the region so as to protect public health and safety and to create sustainable, physical and social environment for improving the quality of life of the citizens and to promote the general public welfare. 68. Section 23 of the Act No.25 of 1982 deals with the procedure to be followed in preparation and sanction of plans which obviously includes Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be. 68. Section 23 of the Act No.25 of 1982 deals with the procedure to be followed in preparation and sanction of plans which obviously includes Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be. As per mandate of provisions of Section 23, before finalisation of the plan, the JDA is under an obligation to prepare a draft plan and publish it by making a copy thereof available for inspection and publishing a notice in the form and manner determined by the Regulations inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to draft plan before such date as specified in the notice. As per the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23, it is mandatory for the Authority to give reasonable opportunity to every local authority within whose local limits, any land touched by the plan is situated, to make any representation with respect to the plan. It is only after consideration of all objections, suggestions and representations, as may have been received, the plan is finally sanctioned by the Authority. 69. Thus, undoubtedly, the Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be, finally sanctioned, after undertaking intensive consultation process involving experts drawn from various disciplines and other stake holders, for systematic and planned development of the city and adjoining areas are democratically prepared planning documents expressing the community desire to develop physically, economically and socially and therefore, its binding effect and inviolability could be well understood. 70. Coming to the most contentious issue, the modification of the Plans during its operative period, Section 25 of the Act No.25 of the Act of 1982, contemplates three situations whereunder the Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be, is permissible to be modified to the extent and in the manner provided. 71. As per sub-section (1) of Section 25, at any time after the Plan has come into operation, the JDA is empowered to make any modification to the Plan as it thinks fit, which in its opinion: (i) do not affect material alterations in the character of the Plan; and (ii) do not relate to the extent of land uses or the standards of population density. 72. 72. It is to be noticed that the Master Plan, a long term perspective Plan for guiding sustainable planned development of the city laying down the planning guidelines, policies, development code, space requirement for various socio economic activities supporting the existing and future population of the city during the Plan period, once finalised and come into operation, even the creator of the Plan, the JDA, is not vested with the unfettered authority to modify the Plan during its operative period as it thinks fit. The power vested with the JDA to modify the Plan during the operative period is circumscribed by the triad conditions noticed hereinabove. 73. The JDA on its own is not empowered to modify the Plan, which affects material alteration in the character of the Plan. It is true that what amounts to material alteration in the character of Plan, is not defined. But then, the basic features of the plan forming foundation for the planned development of the city as projected certainly forms basic character of the plan, which is not permissible to be altered by the JDA in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982. That apart, as noticed hereinabove, the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan are prepared after due deliberation on all the relevant aspects including the need of the existing population and future growth of population during the operative period of the Plan and therefore, it has been specifically provided that the Authority on its own shall not be entitled to modify the land use as defined or affecting the standards of population density in any planning area as projected. 74. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 mandates that with the approval of the State Government, the Authority may make any other modification into the Plan in order to promote the Planned Development of any part of Jaipur Region in most efficient manner. But then, the discretion vested with the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 25, in granting approval of modification of the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan as projected by the respondents, is not absolute. But then, the discretion vested with the State Government under sub-section (2) of Section 25, in granting approval of modification of the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan as projected by the respondents, is not absolute. Undoubtedly, the discretion conferred upon the State Government in permitting modification of the Plan at the instance of the JDA is circumscribed with the condition that it must be in order to promote the Planned Development of Jaipur Region in most efficient manner and thus, while exercising the power conferred as aforesaid, the State Government is required to act with great caution and circumspection and while approving the modification suggested, must satisfy itself that such modification is in furtherance of Planned Development of any part of Jaipur Region. It needs to be reiterated and emphasised that the Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned is product of an intensive consultation process involving expert drawn from different disciplines and the objective consideration of the objections/suggestions of the public at large and therefore, the material on record and the decision of the State Government thereupon approving the modification thereof must reflect that the modification permitted is in larger public interest for accomplishment of the statutory objective of Planned Development in most efficient manner and not to serve an individual interest. 75. In Bangalore Medical Trust's case (supra), while considering the question with regard to permissibility of the change of land use of the land reserved in the Master Plan as open space, public park and playgrounds, where the power was conferred upon the authority to alter the scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: “47. Was the exercise of discretion under subsection (4) of Section 19 in violation or in accordance with the norm provided in law. For proper appreciation the sub-section is extracted below: “19. (4) If at any time it appears to be Authority that an improvement can be made in any part of the scheme, the Authority may alter the scheme for the said purpose and shall subject to the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) forthwith proceed to execute the scheme as altered.” This legislative mandate enables the Authority to alter any scheme. Existence of power is thus clearly provided for. What is the nature of this power and the manner of its exercise? It is obviously statutory in character. Existence of power is thus clearly provided for. What is the nature of this power and the manner of its exercise? It is obviously statutory in character. The legislature took care to control the exercise of this power by linking it with improvement in the scheme. What is an improvement or when any change in the scheme can be said to be improvement is a matter of discretion by the authority empowered to exercise the power. In modern State activity discretion with execution and administrative agency is a must for efficient and smooth functioning. But the extent of discretion or constrains on its exercise depends on the rules and regulations under which it is exercised. Subsection (4) of Section 19 not only defines the scope and lays down the ambit within which the discretion could be exercised but it envisages further the manner in which it could be exercised. Therefore, any action or exercise of discretion to alter the scheme must have been backed by substantive rationality flowing from the section. Public interest or general good or social betterment have no doubt priority over priority or individual interest but it must not be a pretext to justify the arbitrary or illegal exercise of power. It must withstand scrutiny of the legislative standard provided by the statute itself. The authority exercising discretion must not appear to be impervious to legislative directions.” (emphasis added) 76. In R.K.Mittal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the power of the Developing Authority to amend the Master Plan, observed: “40. It has to be noticed at this stage that the development plan prepared in accordance with the Regulations take the statutory colour in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore, its alteration by an executive order would be impermissible. Even when a Master Plan is to be amended, the entire prescribed procedure must be followed. The power to amend should be exercised only in consonance with the settled norms without going beyond the original power of the Development Authority to make such plan in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The power to amend cannot be used to frustrate the provisions of the statute. Regulations, being subordinate legislation must fall in line with the principal provisions of the Act and in no way should be detrimental to the provisions and the legislature scheme of the Act. 48. The power to amend cannot be used to frustrate the provisions of the statute. Regulations, being subordinate legislation must fall in line with the principal provisions of the Act and in no way should be detrimental to the provisions and the legislature scheme of the Act. 48. A decision which is sought to be taken by the Development Authority in the garb of a policy decision matter, if not in conformity to the Master Plan, the Regulations and the provisions of the Act in force, would be an action extra jus. The Development Authority is to act in adherence to the provisions of the law regulating such user or construction. The laconic result of a collective reading of the afore referred statutory provisions is that the Development Authority or its officers, have no power to vary the user and spaces prescribed in the Master Plan, except by amending the relevant laws and that too, for a proper object and purpose. Any decision, as a policy matter or otherwise, for any extent of public convenience, shall be vitiated, if it is not supported by the authority. The courts would examine what is the sensible way to deal with this situation, so as to give effect to the presumed purpose of the legislation. The provisions in question should be construed on their plan reading, supporting the structure of the legislative intent and its purpose. The rule of schematic interpretation would come into play in such situations and the Development Authority concerned cannot be permitted to overreach the procedure prescribed by law with designs not acceptable in law. 49. The Development Authority is inter alia performing regulatory functions. There has been imposition of statutory duties on the power of this regulatory authority exercising specified regulatory functions. Such duties and activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent. It should target those cases in which action is called for and the same be exercised free of arbitrariness. The Development Authority is vested with drastic regulatory powers to investigate, make regulations, impute fault and even to impose penalties of a grave nature to an extent of cancelling the lease. The principles of administrative justice squarely apply to such functioning and are subject to judicial review. The Development Authority, therefore, cannot transgress its power as stipulated in law and act in a discriminatory manner. The principles of administrative justice squarely apply to such functioning and are subject to judicial review. The Development Authority, therefore, cannot transgress its power as stipulated in law and act in a discriminatory manner. The Development Authority should always be reluctant to mould the statutory provisions for individuals, or even the public convenience as this would bring an inbuilt element of arbitrariness into the action of the authorities. Permitting mixed user, where the Master Plan does not so provide, would be glaring example of this kind.” (emphasis added) 77. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the power conferred upon the State Government under subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Act to grant approval to the Authority to make modification into the Plan not covered by the provisions of sub-section (1) is not absolute and no modification in the Plan suggested by the Authority is permissible to be approved by the State Government, which is not in furtherance of the planned development of Jaipur Region in most efficient manner. Suffice it to say that power to modify the Master Development Plan conferred upon the Authority with the prior approval of the State Government in no manner empowers it to effect the modification of the Plan in deviation of the original legislative intent underlying the enactment i.e. the planned and orderly development of Jaipur Region. 78. This takes us to consider the provisions of subsection (2a) of Section 25, inserted vide Jaipur Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2001 w.e.f. 26th of May, 2001, which provides that Authority or Nagar Nigam, Jaipur or any other body or committee, as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf may in order to promote Planned Development of any part of Jaipur Region in most efficient manner, make such modification in the land use of the Plan for such area, as may be specified by the State Government in the Official Gazette. As discussed hereinabove, the Authority which is empowered to prepare and finally sanction the Plan, is also not empowered to make any modification on its own to the Plan, which inter alia affects the extent of the land uses. As discussed hereinabove, the Authority which is empowered to prepare and finally sanction the Plan, is also not empowered to make any modification on its own to the Plan, which inter alia affects the extent of the land uses. Further, by virtue of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25, the Authority is not empowered to effect any modification other than permissible under subsection (1) of Section 25, into the Plan even in order to promote planned development of any part of Jaipur Region in most efficient manner, on its own, without approval of the State Government. Obviously, the other modification in the Plan as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 25, in order to promote planned development of any part of Jaipur Region in more efficient manner permissible to be made by the JDA, the creator of the Plan with the approval of the State Government, includes the change in the land use. But then, while permitting the modification in the land use of the Plan even under sub-section (2a) of Section 25, before issuing notification specifying the change in land use, the State Government on the basis of the material on record including the opinion of planning authorities having expertise in the field and after taking into consideration the objections/ suggestions that may be received, must arrive at a conclusion that the change in the land use is absolutely necessary for planned development of any part in Jaipur Region. It needs to be emphasised that the modification in the Plan in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) & (2a) of Section 25, is permissible only for accomplishment of the basic object of the enactment i.e. planned development of Jaipur Region, in the larger public interest and not just to serve interest of an individual. 79. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As per mandate of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 25, any modification to the Plan in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1), (2) or (2a) cannot be effected without publication of the notice inviting objection before the date as may be specified in the notice and after consideration of the suggestions, as may be received pursuant thereto. As per mandate of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 25, any modification to the Plan in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1), (2) or (2a) cannot be effected without publication of the notice inviting objection before the date as may be specified in the notice and after consideration of the suggestions, as may be received pursuant thereto. Thus, even the modification to the Plan during its operative period to the extent permissible, is not open to be made, without consideration of the objections and suggestions received pursuant to the notice issued, as in the case of preparation of the Plan. Obviously, the objections and suggestions received are required to be considered by the Authority empowered to permit the modification in the Plan in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) of the Section 25 of Act No.25 of the Act of 1982. To be more specific, the procedure to be adopted for modification of the Plan under Section 25 of the Act by the Authority or the State Government, is not different than the procedure required to be adopted while undertaking preparation/revision of the Plan. 80. The provisions of Section 33-A, which finds place in Chapter VI of the Act No.25 of 1982, provide that notwithstanding anything contained in said Chapter where any person carry any development of a permanent nature or has changed the use of land without permission required under the Act or which is not in accordance with the permission granted, is in contravention of any conditions subject to which any permission has been granted or in contravention of any permission granted or duly modified, such development or change of use of land may be compounded by the Authority on such terms and on payment of such fees and charges as may be prescribed by the State Government from time to time. Indisputably, the provisions incorporated as aforesaid, cannot override the provisions of Chapter V of the Act, including Section 25 incorporated therein, which imposes restriction on modification of the Master Plan as discussed hereinabove. Indisputably, the provisions incorporated as aforesaid, cannot override the provisions of Chapter V of the Act, including Section 25 incorporated therein, which imposes restriction on modification of the Master Plan as discussed hereinabove. In other words, the unauthorised development permissible to be compounded in terms of Section 33A, must conform to the land use plan under the Master Development Plan and therefore, unless and until, the unauthorised development sought to be compounded falls within the parameters of the modification of the Plan as contemplated under subsection (1) & (2) of Section 25 as discussed hereinabove and such modification to the Plan is actually effected by following the procedure laid down, no unauthorised development in terms of Section 33A is permissible to be compounded. 81. Coming to the provisions of Act No.18 of 2009, the said Act incorporates specific chapter i.e. Chapter XI, which deals with urban development and town planning within the municipal area. Section 159 thereof, empowers the Municipality to carry out detailed survey of the city and prepare a Master Development Plan and other statutory plans specified i.e. Execution Plan for five years period and Annual Municipal Action Plan for one year period. The procedure provided for preparation and sanction of the plan as laid down under Section 160 of the Act No.18 of 2009, is not different than the procedure as provided for the preparation and sanction of the Plan under the Act No.25 of 1982 or the UIT Act and other relevant statutes. Section 162 of the Act No.18 of 2009, which deals with subsequent modification of the Plan, sub-section (1) thereof, empowers the Municipality to make modification to the Plan as it thinks fit which in its opinion do not affect the material alteration in the character of the Plan and which does not relate to the extent of the land uses or standards of the population density. Thus, like the Authority under the Act No.25 of 1982, the Municipality is also not empowered to make modification in the Plan on its own which affects material alteration in the character of the Plan. But then, Section 162 does not incorporate any provision permitting the Municipality to make any other modifications not referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 162 with the approval of the State Government. But then, Section 162 does not incorporate any provision permitting the Municipality to make any other modifications not referred to under sub-section (1) of Section 162 with the approval of the State Government. Rather, as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 162, no modification of the Plan even which is referred to under sub-section (1), is permissible to be made unless and until it is finally approved by the State Government. Suffice it to say that during the operative period of the Plan under Section 162 of the Act No.18 of 2009, no modification other than those referred to under subsection (1) of Section 162 discussed hereinabove, is permissible to be made. 82. Further, it is relevant to notice that by virtue of provisions of Section 164, any Master Development Plan prepared under the provisions of any other law for time in force, prior to commencement of the Act No.18 of 2009, shall be deemed to have been prepared under the Act No.18 of 2009 and the provisions incorporated as aforesaid for sanction, modification and operation of the Master Plan/Master Development Plan shall mutatis mutandis apply, however, the same shall cease to operate as soon as Plan is sanctioned under the provisions of the Act No.18 of 2009. In this view of the matter, except in respect of the urban areas in respect whereof Improvement Trust has been constituted under Section 8 of the UIT Act and the Jaipur Region, Jodhpur Region and Ajmer Region, the development planning whereof is governed by the provisions of Act No.25 of 1982, Act No.2 of 2009 and Act No.39 of 2013 respectively, the urban development and town planning in other municipal areas shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter XI of the Act No.18 of 2009. 83. Much emphasis was laid by the learned AG and AAG on the proposition that the Master Development Plan is an organic document and not static and cannot be considered so sacrosanct that it cannot be altered in any circumstances during its operative period and unless the decision of the Authority permitting the change of land use in exercise of the statutory power is found to be actuated by mala fides or suffering from vice of colourable exercise of the power, the same should not be interfered with by the court. 84. 84. In Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Ltd's case, relied upon by the learned AG, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising that the development plan is an organic document regarding the periodic changes required in development plan and interpretation of the words “change in character of the plan”, observed: “249. A development plan is an organic document in the sense that periodic changes are contemplated thereby. A development plan is required to be changed every 20 years. Such changes are to be brought about keeping in view the past experience of the planning authority and the intended future development of the town. While, therefore, interpreting the words “change in the character of plan” the question would be as to whether the change in the character is referable to alteration of the entire plan. The change in the character would, therefore, necessarily mean the change in the basic feature thereof and the entire plan as a whole wherefor the same must be read in totality. In this case, the changes made do not bring about any significant changes so as to come to a conclusion that its basic features are altered.” 85. In Pune Municipal Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to the provisions of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, while considering the question of minor modification of the final development plan without affecting its basic character, observed: “3. The question now for consideration is whether the State Government can make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by the Planning Authority or not. The question now for consideration is whether the State Government can make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by the Planning Authority or not. The impugned Section 37 of the Act reads as follows : “37 (1) Where a modification of any part of or any proposal made in, a final development plan is of such a nature that it will not change the character of such development plan, the Planning Authority may, or when so directed by the State Government shall, within sixty days from the date of such direction, publish a notice in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be determined by it inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modification not later than one month from the date of such notice; and shall also serve notice on all persons affected by the proposed modification and after giving a hearing to any such persons, submit the proposed modification with amendments, if any, to the State Government for sanction. (1A) ..... (1AA).... (1B)...... (2) The State Government may, make such inquiry as it may consider necessary and after consulting the Director of Town Planning by notification in the Official Gazette, sanction the modification with or without such changes, and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, or refuse to accord sanction. If a modification is sanctioned, the final development plans shall be deemed to have been modified accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. Reading of this provision reveals that under clause (1), the Planning Authority after inviting objections and suggestions regarding the proposed amendment and after giving notice to all affected persons shall submit the proposed modification for sanction to the Government. The deliberation with the public before making the amendment is over at this stage. The Government, thereafter, under clause (2) is given absolute liberty to make or not to make necessary inquiry before granting sanction. Again, while according sanction, Government may do so with or without modifications. Government could impose such conditions as it deem fit. It is also permissible for the Government to refuse the sanction. This the true meaning of the clause (2). It is difficult to uphold the contrary interpretation given by the High Court. Again, while according sanction, Government may do so with or without modifications. Government could impose such conditions as it deem fit. It is also permissible for the Government to refuse the sanction. This the true meaning of the clause (2). It is difficult to uphold the contrary interpretation given by the High Court. The main limitation for the Government is made under Clause (1) that no authority can propose an amendment so as to change the basic character of the development plan. The proposed amendment could only be minor within the limits of the development plan. And for such minor changes it is only normal for the government to exercise a wide discretion, by keeping various relevant factors in mind. Again, if it is arbitrary or unreasonable the same could be challenged. It is not the case of the respondents herein that the proposed change is arbitrary or unreasonable. They challenged the same citing the reason that the Government is not empowered under the Act to make such changes to the modification.” 86. In Manohar Joshi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue regarding the conversion of the space meant for public amenities for the purposes of housing at the instance of few land owners and builders, observed: “199. As stated above, we adopted the model of democratic planning which involves the participations of the citizens, administrators, municipal bodies and the Government as is also seen throughout the MRTP Act. Thus, when it comes to the development plan for a city, at the initial stage itself there is the consideration of the present and future requirements of the city. Suggestions and objections of the citizens are invited with respect to the proposed plan, and then the planners apply their mind to arrive at the plan which is prepared after a scientific study, and which will be implemented during the next 10 to 20 years as laid down under Section 38 of the MRTP Act. The plan is prepared after going through the entire gamut under Section 21 to 30 of the Act, and then only the sanction is obtained thereto from the State Government. That is why the powers to modify the provisions of the plan are restricted as noted earlier. The plan is prepared after going through the entire gamut under Section 21 to 30 of the Act, and then only the sanction is obtained thereto from the State Government. That is why the powers to modify the provisions of the plan are restricted as noted earlier. If the plan is to be tinkered for the benefit of the interested persons, or for those who can approach the persons in authority, then there is no use in having a planned development. Therefore, Section 37 which permits minor modifications provides that even that should not result into changing the character of the development plan, prior whereto also a notice in the gazette is required to be issued to invite suggestions and objections. Where the modification is of a substantial nature, then the procedure under Section 29 of the Act requiring a notice in the local newspapers inviting objections and suggestions from the citizens is to be resorted to. Even the decision of reservation under Section 50 is at the instance of the appropriate authority only when it does not want the land for the designated purpose. 200. The idea is that once the plan is formulated, one has to implement it as it is, and it is only in the rarest of rare cases that you can depart therefrom. There is no exclusive power given to the State Government, or to the Planning Authority, or to the Chief Minister to bring about any modification, deletion or dereservation, and certainly not by a resort to any of the DC Rules. All these constituents of the planning process have to follow the mandate under Section 37 or 22-A, as the case may be if any modification becomes necessary. That is why this Court observed in para 45 of Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. As follows: (SCC p.729) “45. Town and country planning involving land development of the cities which are sought to be achieved through the process of land use, zoning plan and regulating building activities must receive due attention of all concerned. We are furthermore not oblivious of the fact that such planning involving highly complex cities depends upon scientific research, study and experience and, thus, deserves due reverence.” (emphasis supplied) 87. We are furthermore not oblivious of the fact that such planning involving highly complex cities depends upon scientific research, study and experience and, thus, deserves due reverence.” (emphasis supplied) 87. Thus, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the Master Plan, which is a policy document for guiding the future development of the city or town in the planned manner and to arrest undesirable and unplanned growth, is not a static document, which cannot be modified or revised as and when considered necessary in the larger public interest in furtherance of planned development of the urban area in respect whereof it is made operative. But then, the Master Development Plan prepared to master the future development in the city or town democratically, after due deliberation and consideration of suggestions and objections from the public at large, cannot be permitted to be set at naught at the whim and fancy of the authority concerned just to serve the interest of individuals. Obviously, the object of the planned development shall be achieved by rigorous and successful implementation of the Master Development Plan and not by deviation therefrom with impunity. 88. We are firmly of the opinion that once the Master Development Plan is brought into being, vigilant implementation thereof should be the rule and any deviation therefrom an exception and therefore, the power vested with the Authority or the State Government for modification thereof should be exercised sparingly in furtherance of the planned development in the larger public interest and not otherwise. The status of peripheral control belt /green belt/ecological zone specified in the notified Master Development Plan, permissibility of use of the land forming part of peripheral control belt/ecological zone/green belt specified in the Master Development Plan for the purposes other than those specified during its operative period and thereafter, at the time of revision thereof at the end of its tenure and further the scope of alteration/modification thereof (Question No.2) 89. The issue whether the peripheral control belt/green belt/ ecological zone, specified in the notified Master Plan, a statutory instrument forms basic character/ feature of the Master Plan, which cannot be altered and land forming part thereof cannot be put to other uses i.e. residential, commercial, institutional and industrial purposes etc., has been a most contentious issue in these PILs. 90. The issue whether the peripheral control belt/green belt/ ecological zone, specified in the notified Master Plan, a statutory instrument forms basic character/ feature of the Master Plan, which cannot be altered and land forming part thereof cannot be put to other uses i.e. residential, commercial, institutional and industrial purposes etc., has been a most contentious issue in these PILs. 90. Before considering the issue in light of the statutory provisions, we consider it appropriate to refer to the provisions regarding periphery control belt/ecological zone/green belt, made in the successive Master Developments Plans of the six major cities viz. Jaipur, Jodhpur, Ajmer, Udaipur, Kota and Bikaner, prepared and made operative over the years after coming into force the UIT Act, the Act No.25 of 1982, the Act No.2 of 2009 and Act No.39 of 2013, referred to by the learned amicus curiae, the learned AG and AAG during the course of hearing in support of their contentions so as to show the status of the peripheral control belt/ecological zone/green belt specified, its purpose and permissibility of alteration thereof, so as to put it to other uses such as commercial, residential, institutional and industrial etc. during the operative period of the Plan, at the time of revision or preparation of the new Master Development Plan before or after the horizon year of the existing Master Development Plan. THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF JAIPUR 91. The Master Plan of Jaipur with the horizon year-1991, was prepared under the provisions of UIT Act. After coming into force of the Act No.25 of 1982 and constitution of JDA, Master Development Plan 2011 of Jaipur Region came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1998. Taking into account, the environmental considerations, regional drainage slops, existing developments, direction of growth, requirement of land to accommodate the expected increase in the population and related increase in the various activities, the land utilization in Jaipur Region was divided into three broad categories namely, Rural Area, Ecological Zone and Urbanisable Area. The proposal of land utilization in Ecological Zone delineated in the Master Development Plan 2011 of Jaipur Region reads as under : “Traditionally in the Master Plan of various Towns, the urban areas have been shown as surrounded by a ring of peripheral belt or green belt. This green belt was expected to act as lung space around the urban areas. This green belt was expected to act as lung space around the urban areas. It was also expected to cater to the activities operating in rural areas including agriculture, partly catering to the requirements of the urban uses. The agricultural based activities on such lands are often pushed back by other more profitable activities like housing, industries etc. It is also a fact that with the increase of land requirements for urban uses, the urban land parcel keeps expanding and engulfs a large part of the lung space legally delineated as green belt or peripheral control belt in accordance with law. Thus the area shown as green belt in a Master Plan prepared in seventies becomes an urban area for the same city when the revised or a New Master Plan is prepared on expiry of the stipulated date of earlier document. This obviously does not simply that the urban area which required certain green lung spaces around it during the stipulated Master Plan period ceases be so after expiry of the Master Plan Period. While the Master Plan exercises, under the provisions of various acts are carried out by and large for twenty years period, it is essential even to look beyond the stipulated time frame, for the complex urbanisation phenomenon has no bounds. In this context, it has, therefore, been consideral necessary to delineate a green zone which may continue to remain so even after the plan period and ordinarily may not be altered it subsequent revisions modification or new development plans. Jaipur is fortunate to have available Aravali Hill ranges with forest covers abutting the urban areas towards north and east. These have provided a natural barrier against indiscriminate urbanisation, thus saving the agricultural character of the areas towards North, east, as compared to areas towards north west, west, south east. The study of regional drainage slopes reveals that areas of Achrol valley are drained towards south a large part of which form catchment area of Ramgarh Dam, the main source of drinking water to walled city area. This area contiguous with the areas on both sides of NH 11 leading to Agra up to the Agra Railway line form one contiguous green zone in the Region which has a sensitive eco-system. Any degradation or deterioration in this eco-system is likely to effect quality of life of the citizens of the Region. This area contiguous with the areas on both sides of NH 11 leading to Agra up to the Agra Railway line form one contiguous green zone in the Region which has a sensitive eco-system. Any degradation or deterioration in this eco-system is likely to effect quality of life of the citizens of the Region. Keeping in view all these aspects, besides the Urbanisable Area, Ecological Zone has been delineated in the Region. This zone including the hill ranges, fores covers water bodies, settlements etc. is ideally suited to be maintained as a predominant green zone to be utilized for Agriculture, forestry and allied activities besides compatible activities. The existing settlements and legally established urban and rural functions in this zone will be allowed to expand to the extent of natural growth. Functions and activities which are eco-friendly and occupy minimal built area for incidental use like recreational & health resorts, sports complexes, stud forms, golf courses etc. may come up in this zone subject to stringent control with respect to environmental and other planning aspects. The Ecological Zone shall by all means be protected against indiscriminate urbanisation and shall continue to be a predominant green area even beyond the horizon year as stipulated in this document. The boundaries of the ecological zone as delineated in the over all regional context may very slightly for planning considerations while working out details in the Zonal Development Plans and those plans may accommodate selective extractive industries in specific areas, designated for them, few ecofriendly urban functions as may be promoted by JDA/Govt. The area of the Ecological Zone delineated at this stage is approx 449 Sq. Kms.” (emphasis supplied) (Master Development Plan-2011 Jaipur Region Part-I, page 52) 92. During the operative period of Jaipur Master Development Plan 2011, the JDA prepared Master Development Plan with a horizon year 2025, which has come into force from 6.9.2011. The Master Development Plan 2025 of the Jaipur Region has been drawn up with the reference to following five policy zone : Urban area 1 -U1 Urban area 2 -U2 Urban area 3 -U3 Ecological Zone Rural Area U1 is the compact urban area placed as nuclie of development, and U2 will be the immediate influence area of periphery of U1 area. U3 is intended to be continuum to U1 & U2 area in either side of Major roads. U3 is intended to be continuum to U1 & U2 area in either side of Major roads. In Ecological Zone G1 (Green Zone-1) is primarily a zone where the principal aim is to conserve the natural features such as hills, river, nala, water bodies, forests flora fauna at any cost. The said zone is strictly reserved and to be protected from any development, whereas G2 (Green Zone-2) primarily the area abutting intended to be developed a continuum to G1. It is provided that the Ecological area includes the area which is suitable for agriculture and other eco sensitive purposes. However, in the Ecological Area G2, activity like eco friendly housing, biotech parks, Motel, Resorts has been permitted and further the “Pulses villages” “Oil Palm”, Vegetable Clusters, Mega Food Parks may also be proposed therein. But it is specifically provided that other uses are to be discouraged in G2 and Ecological Area. At the same time, it is provided that if in the interest of general public, the Competent committee may arrive at any other activity with the environmental impact assessment. A further restriction is imposed that such use shall adhere to the basic principle of low intensity development. [vide (iv.) Ecological Zone, Master Development Plan-2025, Volume-2, Page 50-51] Thus, as per the Master Development Plan 2025 of the Jaipur Region, the Ecological Zone (G1) delineated is strictly reserved and protected, which cannot be put to use for any development purposes. Even the Ecological Zone (G2) is ordinarily not permitted to be used for the purposes other than the restrictive purposes specified. The area of Ecological Zone shown in the Master Plan 2011 as 481 Sq. Kms. stands increased in Jaipur MDP 2025 to 894 Sq. Kms. It needs to be mentioned that neither Master Development Plan 2011 nor Master Development Plan 2025, provides for peripheral control belt around the urban area in addition to the Ecological Zone. JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 93. The Master Plan 2001-2023 of Jodhpur Region consisting of Jodhpur City and 72 Revenue Villages after approval under sub-section (3) of Section 6 was notified under Section 7 of the UIT Act on 18.8.03. JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN 93. The Master Plan 2001-2023 of Jodhpur Region consisting of Jodhpur City and 72 Revenue Villages after approval under sub-section (3) of Section 6 was notified under Section 7 of the UIT Act on 18.8.03. Under the Plan while specifying the land use for residential, commercial, industrial, Government & Semi Government and other purposes, a periphery control belt was provided around the urban area to check the encroachment and unauthorised development wherein the land use was mainly restricted to agriculture, plantation and the purposes related thereto. The clause 4.12 of Master Plan 2001-2023 dealing with periphery control belt reads as under: ^^4-12 ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= 'kgj ds ifjf/k {ks= esa vfrØe.k ,oa vukf/kd`r fodkl dks jksdus ds fy, uxjh; {ks= ds pkjksa vkSj ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gSA bl {ks= dh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx] izeq[k :i esa d`f"k] o`{kkjksi.k ,oa blls lacaf/kr mi;ksx ds fy, gh fd;k tk ldsxkA ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= esa iM+us okyh xzkeh.k cfLr;ksa dk fodkl fu;af=r ,oa fu;fer fd;k tk;sxkA xzkeh.k cfLr;ksa dk fodkl xzke iapk;rksa }kjk pyk;s tk jgs xzkeh.k dk;ZØe ds vUrxZr fd;k tk;sxkA jktekxZ ckbZ ikl ds lkFk&lkFk os leLr Hkw&miksx vk ldsaxs] tks gfjr iV~Vh {ks= esa vuqKs; gSa rFkk vU; Hkw&miksx] tSls %& lsok dsUnz] iSVªksy iai] xzkeh.k vkcknh dk foLrkj] eksVy] dqDdqV 'kkyk,a ,oa fjlksVZ] QkeZ gkml] d`f"k lsok dsUnz rFkk d`f"k vk/kkfjr y?kq m|ksx Hkh vk ldsaxsA jktekxksZ ,oa ckbZikl ds lgkjs] vuqKs; fodkl djrs le; bu ekxksZ ds ekxkZf/kdkj ds i'pkr~ 100 QhV pkSM+h iV~Vh xgu o`{kkjksi.k gsrq NksM+uh gksxh rFkk bl iV~Vh ds ckn gh mi;qDr leLr vuqKs; fodkl dk;Z vk ldsaxsA bl izdkj ds lHkh vuqKs; fodkl lfoZl jksM+ ,oa jktekxZ ckbZikl dh vksj mUeq[k u gksdj ihNs dh vksj [kqyrs gq, vUreqZ[kh gksaxsA^^ (Jodhpur Master Plan 2001-2023 clause 4.12 page 54) 94. Mr.M.S.Singhvi, learned amicus curiae while specifically referring to the Draft Master Development Plan-2031 of Jodhpur Region, pointed out that so as to circumvent the interim order passed by this court restraining the respondents from effecting any change in the land use without permission of this court in ecological zone and periphery control belt including the green belt, in the proposed Master Development Plan- 2031 of Jodhpur Region, the provision for ecological zone/periphery control belt/green belt, has been altogether deleted. It is pertinent to note that in Jodhpur MDP 2031 (Draft), it is proposed that at the local level for the purpose of the garden and open spaces on the basis of the population in the residential area, the park shall be developed but then, no reservation of the land for ecological zone/periphery control belt/green belt is proposed. AJMER MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 95. The Master Development Plan 1971-1991 of Ajmer City was prepared under the provisions of UIT Act, was notified vide notification dated September 13, 1976, which makes the provision for Peripheral Control Belt as also for Rural Settlements, as under: “PERIPHERAL CONTROL BELT: The Notified Urban Area of Ajmer covers about 243 sq. Kms. It includes 27 revenue villages. The development programme within the Notified Urban Area would be in two distinct ways firstly the development of Ajmer City, second the development of rural settlements falling within the peripheral belt. Ajmer has assumed special importance for export of eggs not only to other parts of Rajasthan but other States as well. More than one lakh eggs are being exported every day and this activity is likely to increase. Special consideration has therefore been given in the Plan for earmarking areas where these activities could be promoted and properly developed. Dairies and large poultry farms now located in or adjoining the developed area shall be ultimately moved to the new sites, located on the peripheral control belt towards the south-east, south-west and west. These Dairies and Poultry farms will form part of urbanisable area for 1991. Selected villages lying within the Peripheral control belt but outside the urbanisable area shall have to be developed to strengthen the rural economy. These proposals shall envisage some degree of control on the Use of land in the rural areas. In the absence of any restrictions, people are likely to be build in the rural areas is an in-discriminate manner which would not only spoil the rural country side but may also lead to haphazard and sub-standard urban sprawl outside the urbanisable limits. This shall defeat the whole objective of compact and organised urban development. A few villages, lying within the peripheral control belt shall be developed under rural development programme to improve the economy of the rural settlements in the area. This shall defeat the whole objective of compact and organised urban development. A few villages, lying within the peripheral control belt shall be developed under rural development programme to improve the economy of the rural settlements in the area. Permissible uses within the peripheral Control Belt may be forestry, cultivation, nurseries, orchards etc.” (Ajmer Master Plan 1971-91 page 50 & 51) Thereafter, Ajmer Master Development Plan 2001- 2023 was notified under Section 7 of the UIT Act, vide notification dated 4.4.05, which also makes provision regarding periphery control belt in the following terms: ^^¼y½ ifjf/k fu;a=.k mi {ks= %& 'kgj ds Hkkoh uxjh;dj.k ;ksX; {ks= ds ckgj vfu;af=r foLrkj ,oa vfu;ksftr fodkl dks fu;af=r djus ds fy, ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= dh vo/kkj.kk dh mRifŸk gq;h gSA bl ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= esa orZeku esa fLFkr xzkeh.k vkcknh {ks=ksa ,oa vU; ,dy :i esa fufeZr ifjlEifRr;ksa ds vfrfjDr d`f"k Hkwfe ij fujarj o`gn Lrj ij fuekZ.k xfrfof/k;ksa dks lEcfU/kr vf/kfu;e ds rgr fu;af=r fd;k tk,xkA orZeku esa uxj ds mŸkj iwoZ dh vksj ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= esa [kuu {ks= fLFkr gSA bl ifj{ks= dk {ks=Qy 59468 ,dM+ gS rFkk bl ifj{ks= esa] d`f"k vk/kkfjr m|ksx] Ms;jh] o`{kkjksi.k] eqxhZikyu] gkWV cktkj] fjlksVZ] QkeZ gkml vkfn rFkk vko';drkuqlkj xzkeh.k vkcknh ds foLrkj gsrq ys vkÅV Iyku vuqeksnu ds i'pkr vkcknh ds foLrkj vuqKs; gksxk] rkfd xzkeh.k {ks=ksa dk Hkh fu;ksftr fodkl gks lds rFkk bl ;kstuk ifj{ks= esa fLFkr jktdh; Hkwfe Hkfo"; esa tulqfo/kkvksa ds fy, vkjf{kr dh tkuh izLrkfor gSA uxj dh ifjf/k esa laHkkfor vfu;ksftr fodkl dks fu;af=r djus rFkk uxj ds Hkkoh fodkl dks O;ofLFkr :i ,oa fn'kk iznku djus esa ;g ifj{ks= egRoiw.kZ gSA^^ However, during the operative period of Ajmer Master Development Plan, 2001-2023, in the year 2013, Draft Master Development Plan 2013-2033 has been prepared under the provisions of Act No.39 of 2013, which does not provide for Periphery Control Belt as such but makes the provision for Green Area (G-1) & (G-2). Green Area (G-1) is the zone strictly reserved intended to conserve the natural features such as hills, river, nallah, water bodies, forests, flora and fauna and to be protected from any development. G-2 area is the area abutting G-1 which is buffer zone to control the development in Green Area G-1. In the G-2 area, agriculture and other eco-sensitive activities such as eco-friendly residence, bio-park, resorts, vegetable group, mega food park etc. may be permitted. G-2 area is the area abutting G-1 which is buffer zone to control the development in Green Area G-1. In the G-2 area, agriculture and other eco-sensitive activities such as eco-friendly residence, bio-park, resorts, vegetable group, mega food park etc. may be permitted. Thus, the provision incorporated in the Draft Master Development of Ajmer Region makes the provision for Green Area in the line of the Jaipur Master Development Plan 2025, which provides for Ecological Zone (G-1 & G-2). UDAIPUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96. Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022 came into force w.e.f. 23.1.03 wherein, the entire area within the urban limit outside the urbanizable area was declared as peripheral control belt wherein land use for the specified purposes was allowed. UDAIPUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 96. Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022 came into force w.e.f. 23.1.03 wherein, the entire area within the urban limit outside the urbanizable area was declared as peripheral control belt wherein land use for the specified purposes was allowed. Clauses 4.1 y and 5.15 whereof, dealing with Peripheral Control Belt reads as under:- ^^y- ifjf/k fu;a=.k ifj{ks= (Peripheral Control Belt) ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= dk foLrkj uxjhd`r ;ksX; {ks= ds ckgj dk] vf/kfu;e ds rgr vf/k?kksf"kr uxjh; lhek ds e/; dk lEiw.kZ {ks= gksxkA d`f"k ,oa mlds lgk;d O;olk; rFkk Ms;jh] eqxhZ ikyu ikS/k'kkyk] ckxku vkfn fØ;kdyki bl ifj{ks= esa fodflr fd;s tk ldrs gSaA jhdks }kjk dyM+okl ds ikl izLrkfor yxHkx 400 ,dM+] ftad LesYVj vkS|ksfxd {ks= 900 ,dM+ rFkk 300 ,dM+ dk xqM+yh vkS|ksfxd {ks= bl ifj{ks= ds vUrxZr fLFkr gSA bl ifj{ks= ds vUrxZr vf/k?kksf"kr jktLo xzkeksa dh vkcknh {ks= Hkh blh esa lfEefyr gSA bl ifj{ks= dk dqy {ks=Qy yxHkx 59]530 ,dM+ gS rFkk bl ifj{ks= esa d`f"k vkSj mlds lgk;d O;olk;] [kuu dk;Z] vk/kkfjr m|ksx] fjlksVZ vkfn izeq[k vkfFkZd fØ;kdyki gksaxsA uxj dh ifjf/k esa laHkkfor ;n`PN@vfu;ksftr fodkl ds fu;fU=r djus rFkk O;ofLFkr ,oa lagr uxjh; fodkl dh n`f"V ls ;g ifj{ks= egRoiw.kZ gSA^^ 5-15 ifjf/k fu;a=.k iV~Vh (Peripheral Control Belt) ^^uxj dh ifjf/k esa laHkkfor ;n`PN@vfu;ksftr fodkl ij dBksj fu;a=.k djus rFkk O;ofLFkr ,oa lgr uxjh; fodkl dks lqfuf’pr djus ds mn~ns’; ls uxjh; {ks= ds pkjksa vksj ifjf/k fu;a=.k iV~Vh izLrkfor dh xbZ gSA ;g iV~Vh lkekU;r% 3 ls 4 fdyksehVj xgjkbZ esa 'kgj ds pkjksa vksj gksxhA vf/klwfpr uxjh; {ks= esa tks {ks= izLrkfor fd;k x;k gS blesa uxjh;d`r {ks= izLrkfor uxjh;dj.k ;ksX; {ks= ,oa ifjf/k fu;a=.k iV~Vh gSA blesa 62 jktLo xzke lfEefyr gSA bldh vkcknh foLrkj ds vfrfjDr bl fu;a=.k iV~Vh esa vkus okyh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx d`f"k ds vfrfjDr nqX/k 'kkyk] Qyks|ku] ikS/k 'kkyk] eqxhZikyu] QkeZ gkml] fjlksVZl~] eksVYl] ,E;wtesUV ikdZ] okVj ikdZ] fMtuhys.M] vIiw?kj] bZaV HkV~Vs ,oa d`f"k vk/kkfjr m|ksxksa vkfn ds fy;s fd;k tk ldsxkA ifjf/k fu;a=.k iV~Vh esa Hkwfexr ty Lrj dks Åapk mBkus gsrq fjpktZ csflu tSlh ;kstuk;sa lEcfU/kr foHkkxksa }kjk rS;kj fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA jktekxksZa ,oa ckbZikl ftudk ekxkZf/kdkj 200 QhV o 160 QhV vFkok l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk tks Hkh fu/kkZfjr ekxkZf/kdkj gS ds nksuksa vksj lM+d ds e/; ls 70 QhV@ 60QhV @ ekxkZf/kdkj ds vuqikfrd nwjh j[krs gq, Øe’k% 16 QhV ;k 12 QhV pkSM+h lfoZl jksM+ j[kh tk;sxhA bl lfoZl jksM+ ds ckgj dh rjQ nksuksa vkSj fo|qrhdj.k ,oa gfj;kyh ds fy;s Øe’k% 14 QhV@ 8 QhV vFkok ekxkZf/kdkj dh leqfpr pkSM+kbZ ds vuqikr esa vfrfjDr {ks= NksM+k tk;sxkA uxjh;dj.k {ks= ds ckgj jktekxksZa@ ckbZikl ds lgkjs lHkh fodkldrkZvksa }kjk mijksDr ekxksZa ds ekxkZf/kdkj ds i’pkr~ 100 QhV pksM+h iV~Vh xgu o`{kkjksi.k gsrq NksM+uh gksxh rFkk bl iV~Vh ds ckn leLr vuqKs; fodkl dk;Z l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk Hkw mi;ksx ifjorZu ds i’pkr~ gh fd;s tk ldsaxsA leLr vkUrfjd lM+ds lfoZl jksM+ ij ,d fdyksehVj ds vUrjky ij gh feysxh] rRi’pkr~ ;g lfoZl jksM+ jktekxZ@ ckbZikl ij 2 fdyksehVj ls igys dksbZ lM+d ,d nwljs dks ugha dkVsxhA bl izdkj ;g lqfuf’pr fd;k tk ldsxk fd jktekxZ@ ckbZikl ij ;krk;kr lqjf{kr ,oa leqfpr xfr ls fuckZ/k :i ls lapkfjr gks ldsaA jktekxZ@ ckbZikl ds lkFk&lkFk os leLr Hkw mi;ksx vk ldsaxs tks ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= esa vuqKs; gS rFkk Hkw mi;ksx tSls fd jktekxZ lsok dsUnz xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx }kjk LFkkfir rFkk isVªksy iEi] xzkeh.k vkcknh dk foLrkj] eksVy] dqDdqV 'kkyk,a ,oa fjlksVZ ,oa QkeZ gkml] d`f"k lsok dsUnz rFkk d`f"k vk/kkfjr y?kq m|ksx Hkh l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekin.M@vuqeksfnr lsV cSd ds lkFk vk ldsaxsA^^ (Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022 clause 4.1 y page 34, clause 5.15 page 61) During the operative period of Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022, the Plan has been revised and Udaipur Master Plan 2011-2031 prepared under the provisions of UIT Act has been notified vide notification dated 24.9.2013. The Peripheral Control Belt as provided for under the Plan 1997-2022 has been done away with and instead Green Area-1 and Green Area-2 have been provided for in the following terms: ^^5-6-2 xzhu {ks=&1 bl fo'ks"k {ks= esa unh] ukys] tyk'k; rFkk fiNkSYkk] Qrglkxj ,oa mn;lkxj rkykc dk ty Hkjko {ks= gS tks iw.kZ:i ls fuekZ.k fu"ks/k jgsxkA xzhu {ks=&1 ls vfHkizk; >hy ds Qqy Vsad ysoy {ks= ls 100 ehVj rd dk vij&LVªhe dk {ks=] tks fd ekSds ij fjDr d`f"k Hkwfe {ks=] ls gSA fiNkSyk ,oa Qrglkxj ds xzhu {ks=&1 ds i'pkr ds {ks= esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk fnukad 10-12-1999 dks vf/k?kksf"kr fu;fU=r fuekZ.k {ks= esa fnukad 22-05-2000 dks mDr {ks= gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r Hkou fofu;e 2000 ds vuqlkj Hkou fuekZ.k Lohd`fr vuqKs; gksxhA blds vykok jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;k ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fu/kkZfjr nwjh Hkh ekU; gksxh ysfdu iwoZ esa l{ke Lohd`fr ls fd;s x;s fuekZ.kksa dks lek;ksftr ekuk tkosxkA lTtux< vH;kj.k ds pkjksa vksj 100 ehVj ;k ou foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr iV~Vh xzhu {ks=&1 ds vraxZr jgsxhA mDr {ks= fuekZ.k fu"ks/k jgsxk ysfdu iwoZ esa l{ke Lohd`fr ls fd;s x;s fuekZ.kksa dks lek;ksftr ekuk tkosxkA Qrglkxj ds mRrj esa cM+h tkus okyh lM+d ij uhep ekrk pkSjkgs ij fLFkr x<+h jko ukeh Hkwfe dk Hkw&miksx jkT; Lrjh; Hkw&miksx ifjorZu lfefr cSBd fnukad 04-07-2006 esa okf.kfT;d ¼gksVy½ iz;kstukFkZ Hkw&miksx ifjorZu gks tkus ds dkj.k bls Commitment ekurs gq, Hkw&miksx ekufp= esa okf.kT;d Hkw&miksx ds vUrxZr n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ysfdu bl Hkw&miksx ds lEcU/k esa vfxze dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh vkns'kksa ds v/;/khu gksxhA 5-6-3 xzhu {ks=&2 bl fo'ks"k {ks= esa unh] ukys] tyk'k; ds xzhu {ks=&1 ls lVs gq;s {ks= ls rkRi;Z gS ftlesa vYi ?kuRo ds mi;ksx tSls nqX/k 'kkyk] Qyks|ku] ikS/k'kkyk] QkeZ gkml] fjlksVZl~] ,E;wtesUV ikdZ] okVj ikdZ] fMtuhys.M bR;kfn fu;kstu ds ekin.Mksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s vuqKs; jgsxsA ,sls {ks=ksa esa Hkw&miksx vuwKs; djrs le; i;kZoj.k dks /;ku esa j[kk tkosA jktLo xzkeksa dk vkcknh {ks= ;Fkkor jgsxk ,oa fcUnq la[;k 4-3 ¼N½ ds vuqlkj vkcknh foLrkj vuwKs; gksxkA bu >hyksa ds fy;s ,oa >hyksa ds vkl&ikl ds {ks= esa] ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk tkjh vkns'k] iwoZ esa tkjh vuqeksnu] Lohd`rh;k ,oa Hkw&:ikr.k bR;kfn ekU; jgsxsA bl {ks= ds fy, ekuuh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk le;≤ ij ikfjr fu.kZ; ekLVj Iyku ds Hkkx ekusa tk;saxsA^^ (Udaipur Master Plan 2011-2031 page 65-66) KOTA MASTER PLAN 97. Kota Master Plan 2001-2023, notified vide notification dated 15.4.05 while specifying the different land uses to control the unwarranted development during the operative of the Plan, provide for the Peripheral Control Belt, the relevant clause 5.8 thereof, reads as under: ^^5-8 ifjf/k fu;U=.k iV~Vh uxj dh ifjf/k esa vokaNuh; fodkl ij fu;U=.k ds mn~ns'; ls 2023 rd uxjh;dj.k ;ksX; {ks= ds pkjksa vksj ifjf/k fu;U=.k iV~Vh izLrkfor gSA bl {ks= esa vkus okyh Hkwfe dk mi;ksx d`f"k] ou fodkl ,oa blds lgk;d fØ;kdykiksa ,oa lhfer [kuu vkfn ds fy, fd;k tk ldsxkA blls ifjf/k fu;U=.k iV~Vh esa vkus okys xzkeksa] tks fd uxjh;dj.k ;ksX; {ks= 2023 ds ckgj gSa] dk fodkl fu;fU=r ,oa ;kstukc) gksxkA vU; Hkw mi;ksx tSls dh xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx }kjk LFkkfir jktekxZ lsok dsUnz] isVªksy iEi] xzke vkcknh dk foLrkj] eksVy] dqDdqV 'kkyk,sa] fjlksVZ] QkeZ gkml] d`f"k lsok dsUnz] ,E;wtesUV ikdZ] okVj ikdZ] bZaV HkV~Vs] pwuk HkV~Vs rFkk d`f"k vk/kkfjr y/kq m|ksx Hkh fu/kkZfjr ekin.M@vuqeksfnr lSV cSd ds lkFk vk ldsaxsA 'kgj esa fLFkr bZaV HkV~Vksa dks ;kstukc) :i ls ifjf/k fu;U=.k {ks= esa mfpr LFky ij LFkkukUrfjr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA uxj lq/kkj U;kl dksVk }kjk vHksM+k rkykc ls cwWanh jksM+ dks feykus okyh lM+d ds nf{k.k esa QkeZ gkml uxj ;kstuk fodflr dh xbZ gS] ftls ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= esa 'kkfey fd;k x;k gSA lhost VªhVesaV IykaV gsrq ,-Mh-ch- izkstsDV ds vUrxZr xzke /kkdM+ [ksM+h ds lehi p;fur LFky dks Hkh ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA (Kota Master Plan 2001-2023, page 102) BIKANER MASTER PLAN 98. The Master Plan of Bikaner projecting the needs of the town for 25 years with the base year being 1971 and horizon year as 1996 was notified by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 7 of the UIT Act on 31.3.1980. The notified urban area of Bikaner under the Master Plan, 1996 was about 386 kms. encompassing 17 revenue villages, towns of Gangashahar and Bhimasar and the city of Bikaner. The development programme under the Plan was intended to be in two distinct ways, firstly, the development of Bikaner Urbanisable Area and then the development of Rural Settlements within the peripheral belt. The provision with regard to peripheral control belt and rural settlements, as incorporated in the Master Plan, reads as under: “The Notified Urban Area of Bikaner covers about 386 sq. kms. The provision with regard to peripheral control belt and rural settlements, as incorporated in the Master Plan, reads as under: “The Notified Urban Area of Bikaner covers about 386 sq. kms. It includes 17 revenue villages, Bikaner city and towns of Gangashahar and Bhinasar.The development programme within the Notified Urban Area would be in two distinct ways, firstly the development of Bikaner Urbanisable Area and secondly the development of rural settlements falling within the peripheral belt. The land within the peripheral belt shall be used for agriculture and allied activities like afforestation, poultry, dairy etc. Dairies now located in or adjoining the developed areas shall ultimately be moved to new sites to be located in the peripheral control belt. Intensive plantation work shall be undertaken within this belt towards the south and south west. Such a shelter belt shall help to arrest sand storms. Selected villages lying within the Peripheral control belt but outside the Urbanisable Area shall have to be developed to strengthen rural economy. These proposals shall envisage some degree of control on the Use of land in this rural belt. In the absence of any restrictions, people are likely to build in the rural areas in an indiscriminate manner. This would not only spoil the rural country-side but may also lead to haphazard and sub-standard urban sprawl outside the urbanisable limits. This shall defeat the whole objective of compact and urbanised urban development. A few villages, lying within the peripheral control programme to improve the economy of the rural settlements within the area. Permissible uses within the Peripheral Control Belt may be forestry, cultivation, nurseries, dairies, orchards etc.” (Bikaner Master Plan 1971-1996, page 67) The Master Plan of Bikaner was revised with the base year 2001 and horizon year 2023. A few villages, lying within the peripheral control programme to improve the economy of the rural settlements within the area. Permissible uses within the Peripheral Control Belt may be forestry, cultivation, nurseries, dairies, orchards etc.” (Bikaner Master Plan 1971-1996, page 67) The Master Plan of Bikaner was revised with the base year 2001 and horizon year 2023. The clause 4.08 whereof, which deals with the Peripheral Control Belt, reads as under: ^^4-08 ifjf/k fu;a=.k {ks= %& fodflr {ks= vkSj vf/klwfpr uxjh; {ks= ds e/; fLFkr {ks= ifjf/k fu;a=.k ds :i esa j[kk tk;sxkA bl {ks= dk Lo:i eq[; :i ls xzkeh.k gh gksxk vkSj ;gkWa ij dsoy d`f"k ij vk/kkfjr tSls taxykr] o`{kkjksi.k] Ms;jh bR;kfn dk;ksZ dh vuqefr nh tk,xhA vr% bl gjh iV~Vh }kjk 'kgj dk vO;ofLFkr fodkl tks eq[;r% ckgjh {ks=ksa esa gksrk gS] dks fu;af=r fd;k tk ldsxkA bl {ks= esa jk"Vªh; ,oa jkT; ekxZ rFkk ckg~; lM+dksa ds fdukjs o`{kkjksi.k] i;kZoj.k lq/kkj dk;ZØeksa ds vUrxZr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA^^ (Bikaner Master Plan 2001-2023, clause 4.08, page 47) 99. A bare look at the plan proposal of ecological zone incorporated in the Master Plan 2011 of Jaipur Region, makes it abundantly clear that the land forming part of ecological zone was permissible to be put to use for the restrictive purposes inasmuch as, green zone delineated was accepted to act as lung space around the urban area and it was specifically provided that the delineated green zone may continue to remain so even after plan period and ordinarily, was not intended to be altered in subsequent revision/ modification or preparation of new development plans. The provision as aforesaid was incorporated noticing the fact that the urban area which requires certain green lung spaces around it during the stipulated Master Plan period does not cease to be so after expiry of the Master Plan period. 100. It is pertinent to note that the ecological zone in the Master Plan 2011 was the area contiguous with the areas on both the sides of NH 11 leading to Agra upto Agra Railway Line form one contiguous green zone in the Region which has sensitive eco system and therefore, it was specifically observed that any degradation or deterioration in the eco system is likely to effect quality of life of the Region. In the Jaipur MDP 2025, the area of the ecological zone, which was shown to be 481 Sq. Kms. In the Jaipur MDP 2025, the area of the ecological zone, which was shown to be 481 Sq. Kms. in Master Plan 2011, has been increased to 894 Sq. Kms. however, the urbanisable area stands increased to 1596 Sq. Kms. as against 391 Sq. Kms. covered under the Master Plan 2011. It is pertinent to note that percentage wise, the urbanisable area stands increased from 19.94% of the total land utilization to 54.30%, but, the ecological area stands increased from 24.55% to 30.40% only. That apart, as noticed hereinabove, in the Master Development Plan 2025, the ecological zone bifurcated in two zones i.e. G-1 & G-2. G-1 covers only 381 kms. which includes Reserve Forest, Protected Forest, Hills, Drains, Rivers, Water Body. G-2 has been further bifurcated in two zones i.e. Buffer to G-1 and Ecological Area, which cover 196 Sq. Kms. and 417 Kms. respectively. In any case, the ecological zone as specified in the Master Plan 2011 or the Master Development Plan 2025, clearly indicates that the ecological zone, which includes all bio-diverse and incompatible use areas like reserve forest, protected forest, flora and fauna area, wet lands, flood prone areas, water recharges areas, water bodies, heritage conservation areas, animal rescue centres, water sheds, habitat of migratory birds, national parks, sanctuaries, significant local areas etc. is categorised as eco sensitive area to be kept open to protect environmentally sensitive land from urban development and sprawl. Even the land forming part of Ecological Zone (G2) is also not intended to be used for the purpose other than low density restrictive purposes specified. Similar is the position in respect of the Green Area (G1 & G2) as provided under Udaipur Master Plan 2011-2031. The position of the Green Area as projected in the Draft Ajmer Master Development Plan 2013-2033 is also not different. 101. As noticed hereinabove, in the Writ Petition No.5645/08, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents in permitting the change of user of the land measuring 1222.93 hectares between Kho-Nagoria to Goner Road, covered by the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011, from ecological zone to residential and mixed land use, by way of zonal lay out plan of Sector 34 and Sector 35. Strangely enough, while defending the change of the land use permitted, the respondents have sought to take the stand that it is not possible for the JDA to acquire such a huge private land for maintaining it as green belt and therefore, keeping in view of the ground growing pressure on the land of housing and the fact that the land is private khatedari land and closed vicinity of Jaipur City, it would be difficult to ensure that housing colony do not develop on this land. It is not understandable that if the land is earmarked as green belt, why the JDA is required to acquire the land so as to maintain it as green belt. If the land is shown to be part of ecological zone, the private owners of the land shall not be permitted to use the land for raising constructions but, they are not precluded from using the land while maintaining the nature of the land use as specified under the Master Development Plan. 102. In Yashwant Sharma's case (supra), while dealin with the issue regarding respondents' allowing indiscriminate urbanisation and exploitation of the ecological zone, the court did not interfere with the change of land use made by the State Government on JDA giving the undertaking to develop the ecological zone by setting apart 200 bighas of land for the said purpose in lieu of the land taken out from the demarcated use for ecological zone in the Master Plan to rehabilitate slum dwellers. But, at the same time, the court warned the JDA not to amend the Master Plan casually in future unless and until, it is necessarily warranted to modify the Master Development Plan, that too, in the limited scope. Thus, ignoring the directions of this court, the change of the land use of such a huge area forming part of ecological zone for residential and mixed user by the respondents, cannot be countenanced by this court. 103. As a matter of fact, the fundamental object of providing ecological zone or green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open so as to protect natural or semi natural environment; improve air quality within the urban area and to ensure the lung spaces for the inhabitants of the urban area. 103. As a matter of fact, the fundamental object of providing ecological zone or green belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the land permanently open so as to protect natural or semi natural environment; improve air quality within the urban area and to ensure the lung spaces for the inhabitants of the urban area. In other words, the permanent openness is the most important attribute of ecological zone/green belt and for this reason, while designating the land use in such area, the care is taken that it remains largely undeveloped and only eco friendly development not affecting the natural and healthful environment comes up within the area. In the considered opinion of this court, the green belt/ecological zone specified in the Master Development Plan in furtherance of welfare of the inhabitants of the area forms basic feature of the Master Development Plan, which once established, is not permissible to be altered even while undertaking the revision of the Plan or the preparation of the new Plan. Even the area which is shown in the various Master Plans as Green Zone/Area (G2) abutting G-1 developed as buffer to promote a continuum to G-1 is permissible to be used for the activities other than those specified only in exceptional circumstances in the interest of the general public and not otherwise to serve an individual interest. 104. In the matter of “Essar Oil Limited vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti”, (2004)2 SCC 392 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to Stockholm declaration laying down the principle providing for the protection of natural resources of the earth including air, water, land, flora and fauna, observed: “27. This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental consideration on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, the filling up lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other.” 105. In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising on state obligation to protect the natural resources and environment invoking the concept of public trusteeship, observed: “83. The concept of public trusteeship may be accepted as a basic principle for the protection of natural resources of the land and sea. The Public Trust Doctrine (which, found its way in the ancient Roman Empire) primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of their status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government and its instrumentalities to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public. ....xxxxx.... 87. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The, said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: “Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first; the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and their the property must be maintained for particular types of uses.” (emphasis added) 106. In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the question regarding economic growth vis-a-vis the environmental protection with reference to Article 48A & 51A of the Constitution of India, observed: “82. Article 48-A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51-A of the Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two Articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws and further these two articles are to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution including Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also the various laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature. 83. On the other hand, we cannot also shut our eyes that shelter is one of the basic human needs just next to food and clothing. Need for a national housing and habitat policy emerges from the growing requirements of shelter and related infrastructure. These requirements are growing in the context of rapid pace of urbanization, increasing migration from rural to urban centres in search of livelihood, mismatch between demand and supply of sites and services at affordable cost and inability of most new and poorer urban settlers to access formal land markets in urban areas due to high costs and their own lower incomes, leading to a non-sustainable situation. This policy intends to promote sustainable development of habitat in the country, with a view to ensure equitable supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices. 84. The World has reached a level of growth in the 21st Century as never before envisaged. This policy intends to promote sustainable development of habitat in the country, with a view to ensure equitable supply of land, shelter and services at affordable prices. 84. The World has reached a level of growth in the 21st Century as never before envisaged. While the crisis of economic growth is still on, the key question which often arises and the Courts are asked to adjudicate upon is whether economic growth can supersede the concern for environmental protection and whether sustainable development which can be achieved only by way of protecting the environment and conserving the natural resources for the benefit of the humanity and future generations could be ignored in the garb of economic growth or compelling human necessity. The growth and development process are terms without any content, without an inkling as to the substance of their end results. This inevitably leaves us to the conception of growth and development which sustains from one generation to the next in order to secure “our common future”. In pursuit of development, focus has to be on sustainability of development and policies towards that end have to be earnestly formulated and sincerely observed. As Prof. Weiss puts it, “conservation, however, always takes a back seat in times of economic stress.” It is now an accepted social principle that all human beings have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, commensurate with their well being, coupled with a corresponding duty of ensuring that resources are conserved and preserved in such a way that present as well as the future generations are aware of them equally.” 107. To sum up, whatever may be the compulsion for the economical growth, the right of the citizens to a healthy environment has to be protected and therefore, in the garb of the planned development, the land falling within the eco sensitive zone/ ecological zone/green belt cannot be permitted to be unscrupulously put to use for the purposes other than those specified else, the basic goal underlying the Master Development Plan, the welfare of the people in ensuring quality of life by creating healthful environment for the present and future generations, shall stand frustrated. 108. 108. Coming to the peripheral control belt as provided under Jodhpur Master Plan 2001-2023, Ajmer Master Plans 1971-1991 and 2023, Kota Master Plan 2001-2023, Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022 and Bikaner Master Plan-2001-2023, it is to be noticed that peripheral control belt around the cities are provided so as to prevent and control unauthorised and unplanned development around the existing urbanisable area of the city and therefore, the land falling within the peripheral control belt is permissible to be used only for restrictive low density development purposes specified. It is true that the peripheral control belt as defined under the different Master Plans does not indicate that it will continue to remain so even after the plan period but then, certainly, during the operative period of the Plans, the land falling within the peripheral control belt is not permissible to be used for the purposes other than those specified and ordinarily, cannot be put to any other use. 109. To appreciate the purpose of providing peripheral control belt around the urban area of the city and the issue with regard to non permissibility of the use of the land falling within the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified, during the operative period of the plan or subsequent revision thereof or preparation of the new plan, it would be appropriate to refer to the datas of the land use planning projected under the Master Plans of different cities notified from time to time. 110. It is pertinent to note that at the time of preparation of the Jodhpur Master Plan 2001-2023, under the existing land use plan, the urbanised area was shown to be 26,880 acres out of which 16,326 acres land was covered by developed area and the remaining land was covered by defence area, open area, forest, hills and water bodies. Further, the area covered by the park and open space was only 1133 acres which comes to 6.94% of the developed area. It is pertinent to note that in the Jodhpur Master Plan 2023, the total urbanised area included was 2,48,500 acres out of which, 69,300 acres land was proposed to be covered by developed area and 9916 acres land was shown to be covered by government reserved area, forest, hills and water bodies. It is pertinent to note that in the Jodhpur Master Plan 2023, the total urbanised area included was 2,48,500 acres out of which, 69,300 acres land was proposed to be covered by developed area and 9916 acres land was shown to be covered by government reserved area, forest, hills and water bodies. Significantly, the open space of 4120 acres shown in the Master Plan 1991 was deleted in the land use plan of Master Plan 2001-2023. But out of the total urbanised area, 2,48,500 acres, 1,69,284 acres was shown to be covered by peripheral control belt. Suffice it to say that out of the total urban area covered by the Master Plan about 68.12% land was proposed to be covered by peripheral control belt. 111. Likewise, as per the land use as provided for in Ajmer Master Plan 1971-1991, out of notified urban area 60,800 acre, the area of peripheral control belt was provided as 44,570 acre which under seven Planning Districts notified has been referred to as 'Green Belt District'. In Ajmer Master Plan 2001-2023, out of total notified urban area 92,754 acre, 59,467 acre area has been shown as peripheral control belt. 112. In the Udaipur Master Plan 1997-2022, out of 86,710 acre land notified as urban area, 59,530 acre land was shown as peripheral control belt. 113. In the Kota Master Plan 2001-2023, out of total urban area 1,25,000 acre, the land measuring 86,491 acre is shown to be within the peripheral control belt. 114. In Bikaner Master Plan 2001-2023, the urban area was notified as 1,12,705 acre and out of that 38,758 was shown as urbanisable area and the remaining 73,947 acre area has been projected as peripheral control belt. 115. A bare look at the proportion of the area included within the peripheral control belt vis-a-vis the total urban area notified under the Master Plans of various cities promulgated from time to time makes it abundantly clear that the area included within the peripheral control belt to be used for the restricted purposes during the operative period of the plan is much higher than the urbanisable area included within the land use plan. In the considered opinion of this court, the ratio of the urbanised area and the peripheral control belt by itself is indicative of the fact that the peripheral control belt does not have attribute of openness for all time to come and thus, the learned AG was justified in contending that the peripheral control belt as provided for in the Master Plan was never intended to be kept open and unaltered for all times to come. In this view of the matter, the contention of learned amicus curiae that the restrictive land use of the peripheral control belt in the Master Plans of various cities must be ceased and should not be permitted to be used for other development purposes on the revision of the Master Plans, cannot be countenanced by this court. 116. Coming to the use of the land falling within the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified, during the operative period of the Master Plan of the city, as discussed hereinabove, the basic purpose of the constitution of statutory authority to undertake the urban development planning is to promote healthy growth and development of the city so as to achieve the ultimate object of promotion and enhancement of quality of life for the citizens. Undoubtedly, while notifying the urban area and undertaking the development in the urbanisable area, as per the land use plan depicted in the Master Development Plan, the peripheral control belt has been provided so as to control the development in surrounding areas inasmuch as, unplanned and unauthorised development in the peripheral control belt is bound to affect the quality of life of the inhabitants in the urbanised and urbanisable area. In this view of the matter, this court is firmly of the opinion that during the operative period of the Master Plan, the land use in the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified generally should not be permitted. In this view of the matter, this court is firmly of the opinion that during the operative period of the Master Plan, the land use in the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified generally should not be permitted. But if the change of the land use in the peripheral control belt is considered to be inevitable, the subsequent alteration or modification of the plan must subserve the legislative intent of planned development for promotion and enhancement of the quality of life of the citizens and therefore, any isolated change in the land use of the land falling within the peripheral control belt without inclusion thereof in the land use plan of urbanisable area shown in the Master Development Plan, the development wherein has to be further regulated by Zonal Development Plans notified, in accordance with the procedure laid down, should not be permitted. That apart, any change in the land use plan in the peripheral control belt during the operative period of the plan must be in the larger public interest and not to serve the interest of individuals. 117. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which requires consideration of this court. Indisputably, as the city grows, adequate open spaces, green spaces such as parks, woodlands and rolling countrysides accessible to all the inhabitants must be reserved and preserved which by all means would contribute in large measure to quality of life, the citizens are entitled for and therefore, the population growth and migration to the city may necessitate modification in the planning but then, under the pressure of population growth and migration, the land use plan cannot be permitted to be changed in such a manner that it converts the city into just a cluster of buildings frustrating the very object of the planned development undertaken under the statutory scheme so as to ensure healthy and peaceful environment for the citizens. It needs to be emphasised that whenever modification of the Master Plan is undertaken so as to include the land forming part of the peripheral control belt within the scheme of urban development, the authorities entrusted with the duty to ensure the quality of life for the citizen through planned development, are under an obligation to take into consideration the requirement of the lung spaces for the existing population of the city and reserve the adequate land for that purpose in the close vicinity inasmuch as, if the urbanised area in the city go on expanding and the further inclusion of the surrounding villages is made within the urbanisable area, the lung spaces required for existing population in the close vicinity cannot be done away with or shifted to a remote place and therefore, whenever the modification, alteration or revision of the Master Development Plan is undertaken, the green spaces required for the existing population must be reserved by providing buffer zone. To put in other words, any development activity within the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified under the peripheral control belt should not be permitted without ensuring the fulfillment of requirement of open spaces/green spaces for the existing population settled in different zones of the city. The minimum requirement of the green area/open space/parks/recreational area under the Master Development Plan, diversion of the land use thereof and restoration of the original user thereof (Question no.3 & 4) 118. Indubitably, the purpose of Master Development Plan is to set down long term perspective plan for guiding the sustainable planned development of the city. One of the most important aspect of the planned development pertains to protection and preservation of environment by reservation of open spaces for ventilation, recreation, parks and playground for the general public so as to achieve the ultimate objective of the planned development i.e. a quality of life for the citizens. As noticed hereinabove, the legislative intent to provide for clear policy regarding preservation and reservation of the open spaces, gardens, recreation centres, zoological gardens, nature reserves, health resorts etc. in the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, is explicitly mandated under the provisions of Sections 16, 21 and 22, which deal with the functions of the Authority, the preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan respectively. in the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, is explicitly mandated under the provisions of Sections 16, 21 and 22, which deal with the functions of the Authority, the preparation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan respectively. As a matter of fact, keeping in view the increasing level of pollution in the cities in order to ensure adequate 'lung spaces' for the citizens, it is the need of time that besides preservation of the open/green spaces already available, more and more open/green spaces are created within the city. Thus, whatever may be compelling circumstances, the immigration of the citizens from the rural area to the cities or the growth of population within the city, while undertaking the development planning, the authorities are under an obligation to ensure the minimum requirement of the green space per city dweller. Obviously, the requirement of the green space has to be taken into account by the authorities not only while preparing the Master Development Plan but also while undertaking the implementation of the various schemes under the Zonal Development Plan inasmuch as, besides the general requirement of the open/green spaces for the inhabitants of the city, the availability of adequate open/green spaces for the residents settled in the different zones, has to be there within the scheme areas. 119. It need to be emphasised that the city's requirement for green space within the urban area and opportunities to provide it will continue to germinate with the communities' development and redevelopment and therefore, the lands for open space, green space, playground, recreational area etc. to fulfill the need of the communities must be clearly identified and characterised in the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and must be protected during the operative period of the Plan and even thereafter while undertaking revision thereof and the same cannot be permitted to be used for the purposes other than those identified. 120. In Bangalore Medical Trust's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the question regarding diversion of the open space earmarked for park for the purpose of construction of the hotel for a trust, observed : “23. 120. In Bangalore Medical Trust's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining the question regarding diversion of the open space earmarked for park for the purpose of construction of the hotel for a trust, observed : “23. The scheme is meant for the reasonable accomplishment of the statutory object is to promote the orderly development of the city of Bangalore and adjoining areas and to preserve open spaces by reserving public parks and playgrounds with a view to protecting the residents from the ill-effects of urbanisation. It means for the development of the city in a way that maximum space is provided for the benefit of the public at large for recreation, enjoyment, 'ventilation' and fresh air. This is clear from the Act itself as it originally stood. The amendments inserting Section 16(1)(d), 38-A and other provisions are clarificatory of this object. The very purpose of BDA, as a statutory authority, is to promote the healthy growth and development of the city of Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto. The legislative intent has always been the promotion and enhancement of the quality of life by preservation of the character and desirable aesthetic features of the city. The subsequent amendments are not a deviation from or alteration of the original legislative intent, but only an elucidation or affirmation of the same. 24. Protection of the environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh air, playgrounds for children, promenade for the residents, and other conveniences or amenities are matters of great public concern and of vital interest to be taken care of in a development scheme. It is that public interest which is sought to be promoted by the Act by establishing the BDA. The public interest in the reservation and preservation of open spaces for parks and playgrounds cannot be sacrificed by leasing or selling such sites to private persons for conversion to some other user. Any such act would be contrary to the legislative intent and inconsistent with the statutory requirements. Furthermore,it would be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate to ensure that any State action is inspired by the basic values of individual freedom and dignity and addressed to the attainment of a quality of the which makes the guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens. 25. Furthermore,it would be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate to ensure that any State action is inspired by the basic values of individual freedom and dignity and addressed to the attainment of a quality of the which makes the guaranteed rights a reality for all the citizens. 25. Reservation of open spaces for parks and playgrounds is universally recognised as a legitimate exercise of statutory power rationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill-effects of urbanisation.” (emphasis added) 121. In Virendra Gaur's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising the obligation of the local authority to maintain and protect environment man made as well as natural with reference to the Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment 1972 and Article 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, observed: “5. Environment is a polycentric and multifaceted problem affecting the human existence. Environmental pollution causes bodily disabilities, leading to non-functioning of the vital organs of the body. Noise and pollution are two of the greatest offenders; the later affects air, water, natural growth and health of the people. Environmental pollution affects, thereby, the health of general public. The Stockholm Declaration of United Nations on Human Environment, 1972, reads its Principle No.1, inter alia, thus: “Man has the fundamental right of freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life. In an environment of equality that permits a life of dignity and well-being and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.” 6. The Declaration, therefore, affirms both aspects of environment, the natural and the man-made and the protection is essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights, i.e. the right to life itself. The right to have living atmosphere congenial to human existence is a right to life. The Declaration, therefore, says that “in the developing countries, most of the environmental problems are caused by underdevelopment”. The Declaration suggests recourse to safe actions with prudent care for ecological balance. The right to have living atmosphere congenial to human existence is a right to life. The Declaration, therefore, says that “in the developing countries, most of the environmental problems are caused by underdevelopment”. The Declaration suggests recourse to safe actions with prudent care for ecological balance. “It is necessary to avoid massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment and strive for achieving a better life for the present generation and posterity in an environment more in keeping with their needs and hopes.” The affirmative declaration in Principle No.1 (supra) enjoins the Municipal States to solve environmental problems in the broadest human context and not as mere problems to conserve the nature for its own sake.” 7. Article 48-A in Part IV (Directive Principles) brought by the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, enjoins that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country”. Article 47 further imposes the duty on the State to improve public health as its primary duty. Article 51-A(g) imposes “a fundamental duty” on every citizen of India to “protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and the wild life and to have compassion for living creatures”. The word “environment” is of broad spectrum which brings within its ambit “hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance”. It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State but also the duty of every citizen to maintain hygienic environment. The State, in particular has duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled hygienic environment. Article 21 protects right to life as a fundamental right. Enjoyment of life and its attainment including their right to life with human dignity encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water, sanitation without which life cannot be enjoyed. Any contra acts or actions would cause environmental pollution. Environmental, ecological, air, water, pollution, etc. should be regarded as amounting to violation of Article 21. Therefore, hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence. Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the manmade and the natural environment. Therefore, hygienic environment is an integral facet of right to healthy life and it would be impossible to live with human dignity without a humane and healthy environment. Environmental protection, therefore, has now become a matter of grave concern for human existence. Promoting environmental protection implies maintenance of the environment as a whole comprising the manmade and the natural environment. Therefore, there is a constitutional imperative on the State Government and the municipalities, not only to ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, protect and improve both the man-made and the natural environment.” 8. Section 203 of the Act enjoins the Municipality to frame the Scheme providing environment and sanitary amenities and obtain sanction from the competent authority to provide, preserve and protect parks, open lands, sanitation, roads, sewage, etc. to maintain ecological balance with hygienic atmosphere not only to the present residents in the locality but also in the future generation. The lands vested in Section 61(c) of the Act should be used for the purposes envisaged therein. We do not agree with the appellants that for non-user of open land by the Municipality for more than two decades, the land stood divested from the Municipality and vested in them. Yet the Municipality has to use the land for the purposes envisaged in the Scheme read with those found in Section 61 unless avoidable compelling public purpose require change of user. Take a case where in the zonal plan certain land is marked out and reserved for park or recreational purpose. It cannot be acquired or allotted for building purpose though housing, it is a public purpose. 11. It is seen that the open lands, vested in the Municipality, were meant for the public amenity to the residents of the locality to maintain ecology, sanitation, recreation, playground and ventilation purposes. The buildings directed to be constructed necessarily affect the health and the environment adversely, sanitation and other effects on the residents in the locality. Therefore, the order passed by the Government and the action taken pursuant thereto by the Municipality would clearly defeat the purpose of the scheme. Shri D.V. Sehgal, learned Senior Counsel, again contended that two decades have passed by and that, therefore, the Municipality is entitled to use the land for any purpose. We are unable to accept the self-destructive argument to put a premium on inaction. Shri D.V. Sehgal, learned Senior Counsel, again contended that two decades have passed by and that, therefore, the Municipality is entitled to use the land for any purpose. We are unable to accept the self-destructive argument to put a premium on inaction. The land having been taken from the citizens for a public purpose, the Municipality is required to use the land for the protection or preservation of hygienic conditions of the local residents in particular and the people in general and not for any other purpose. Equally acceptance of the argument of Shri V.C.Mahajan encourages pre-emptive action and conduct, deliberately chartered out to frustrate the proceedings and to make the result fait accompli on the touchstone of prospective operation of our order.” (emphasis added) 122. In Balinder Bachan Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that the green spaces and green belts have to be provided in every locality to provide the lung space to the residents of the locality. The court observed: “17. For every locality green spaces and green belts have to be provided to provide lung space to the residents of the locality. A provision for green park was made by the Municipal Corporation keeping in view the minimum requirement to provide open/green space to the residents of the locality. Rajinder Kaur, mother of the plaintiffrespondents herself had submitted a layout plan which comprised the present suit land. She had herself agreed to leave 25 per cent of the area under the Scheme to be used by the inhabitants of the locality for common purposes including the open space area which is in dispute. The documentary evidence which has come on record in the form of the original Scheme as well as documents Exts. D-1 to D-38 and the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner conclusively shows that the suit land measuring 3.16 kanals was left in the Scheme to be used as open space for the use of the residents of the locality.” (emphasis added) 123. In Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao's case (supra), while considering the legality of the permission granted by the Urban Development Authority for construction of the temple at the site of which land use was shown as recreational in Zonal Development Plan approved by the State Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “14. In Machavarapu Srinivasa Rao's case (supra), while considering the legality of the permission granted by the Urban Development Authority for construction of the temple at the site of which land use was shown as recreational in Zonal Development Plan approved by the State Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “14. An analysis of the above-noted provisions shows that once the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan is approved by the State Government, no one including the State Government/Development Authority can use land for any purpose other than the one specified therein. There is no provision in the Act under which the Development Authority can sanction construction of a building etc. or use of land for a purpose other than the one specified in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. The power vested in the Development Authority to make modification in the development plan is also not unlimited. It cannot make important alterations in the character of the plan. Such modification can be made only by the State Government and that too after following the procedure prescribed under Section 12(3).” 124. In Manohar Joshi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising the reservation of the space for public amenities including playgrounds and parks, observed: “208. As we have seen, the MRTP Act give a place of prominence to the spaces meant for public amenities. An appropriately planned city requires good roads, parks, playgrounds, markets, primary and secondary schools, clinics, dispensaries and hospitals and sewerage facilities amongst other public amenities which are essential for a good civic life. If all the spaces in the cities are covered only by the construction for residential houses, the cities will become concrete jungles which is what they have started becoming. That is how there is need to protect the spaces meant for public amenities which cannot be sacrificed for the greed of a few landowners and builders to make more money on the ground of creating large number of houses. The MRTP Act does give importance to the spaces reserved for public amenities, and makes the deletion thereof difficult after the planning process is gone through, and the plan is finalised. Similar are the provisions in different State Acts.” (emphasis added) 125. In Sushanta Tagore's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue relating to protection and preservation of environmental ambience of Visva-Bharti University, Shanti Niketan, observed: “33. Similar are the provisions in different State Acts.” (emphasis added) 125. In Sushanta Tagore's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue relating to protection and preservation of environmental ambience of Visva-Bharti University, Shanti Niketan, observed: “33. It may be true that the development of a town is the job of the Town Planning Authority but the same should conform to the requirements of law. Development must be sustainable in nature. A land use plan should be prepared not only having regard to the provisions contained in the 1979 Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but also the provisions of other statutes enacted therefor and in particular those for protection and preservation of ecology and environment.” 126. Keeping in view the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as aforesaid, the issue that the land specifically earmarked as open spaces, common facilities, parks, playgrounds and recreation grounds etc. in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, cannot be diverted to the use other than those specified, does not require further dilation. In the considered opinion of this court, besides ecosensitive zone/ecological zone/green area, the reservation and preservation of the land as green cover i.e. parks, open spaces, playgrounds etc. provided for protecting the residents of the city from ill-effects of urbanisation and to ensure healthful environment certainly forms part of basic character of the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and therefore, the land use specified for the said purpose cannot be permitted to be altered to subserve an individual interest as against the community interest in preserving the same. 127. Coming to the facts brought on record in these PILs regarding diversion of the lands earmarked in the Master Development Plan as open space, playground, parks, recreation area etc. by the various authorities to other uses, it is to be noticed that the factum of diversion of the land earmarked for the public amenities to other use is not even disputed on behalf of the respondents. As a matter of fact, the only contention of the respondents defending the change of user of the land for the purposes other than those specified, is that the diversion permitted is negligible, which keeping in view the increase in population and the change in the pattern of urban development, to meet the need of the time, could not have been avoided. The factum of diversion of the user of the land earmarked as open spaces, parks, playgrounds, recreation area, plantation belt etc. in the Master Plans of the major cities, on the applications made by the individuals for other purposes i.e. residential, commercial and industrial etc. stands fortified from the written submissions made by the respondents pursuant to the directions issued by this court vide order dated 25.4.06 and thereafter. 128. It is to be noticed that in Writ Petition No.5907/08, filed by a voluntary organisation, the details of as many as 268 conversion permitted including the conversion of the land earmarked for the purposes of green belt, park, ecological zone, playgrounds, recreational areas to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional purposes have been set out in the Schedule A annexed with the writ petition. The factum of conversion of the land as alleged is not disputed by the respondent, however, the same is sought to be defended taking the stand that the modification has been permitted by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. 129. As discussed in the earlier part of the order, the power conferred under the statute permitting modification/alteration of the land use during the operative period of the Plan and thereafter, at the time of revision thereof, is not absolute and it is directly linked with the basic objective of the enactment i.e. the planned development of the city covered by the Master Development Plan. Thus, the authority in the garb of the exercise of the power conferred under the statute, cannot modify the land use earmarked for the specified purposes as aforesaid at its whims and fancy rather, the power conferred has to be exercised in fair and reasonable manner, in furtherance of the basic object of the enactment i.e. planned development in most efficient manner and thus, obviously, to protect the right of the residents to have healthful environment and to save them from ill-effect of urbanisation. To put it strictly, unless the diversion of user of such earmarked land under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan as sought for, is so compelling that it even outweighs the right of the citizens to have the healthful environment and enjoy the quality of life assured, no such diversion should be permitted. 130. Coming to the land earmarked for common facilities, parks, open spaces, recreational area etc. 130. Coming to the land earmarked for common facilities, parks, open spaces, recreational area etc. in the colonies development by local authority or by private developers with the prior approval of the local authority, it cannot be disputed that whenever a colony is developed taking into consideration all the relevant aspects i.e. including the population density, the requirement of open spaces, parks etc. so as to ensure the comfort and the quality of life for the inhabitants to be settled in the colony. Once a colony is developed, a person settling there after purchasing the land acquires right to live in an atmosphere congenial to human existence as projected under the lay out plan approved and therefore, when the land is earmarked in a colony developed by the local authority or the private coloniser as open space, playground, park or for recreational purpose, cannot be put to any other use and certainly even a private coloniser cannot claim any right to use such land for any other purpose. As a matter of fact, it is the duty of the State to take all appropriate measures to maintain healthful environment in the colony developed and therefore, the land use earmarked in the lay out plan of the colony for the purpose of open spaces, parks etc. cannot be permitted to be used even for other public purposes. 131. As noticed hereinabove, in Balinder Bachhan Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that for every locality, green spaces and green belts have to be provided to provide lung space to the residents of the locality. The Court further specifically held therein: “18. ...xxx.... It is well known and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that residential plots sell at a much higher price than the agriculture land. To sell the land as plots, a part of the land has to be left to provide for common purposes such as roads, community centre, schools and parks. Having taken advantage of selling the plots in a developed colony and charging a higher price, which were purchased by the inhabitants with the understanding that civic amenities including the park were wellprovided- for, the plaintiff-respondents cannot be permitted to turn around to claim the land left in the Scheme for being used as a park as their personal property.” (emphasis added) 132. Thus, the illegality in permitting the change of the land use of the land earmarked for playgrounds, parks and other public amenities cannot be permitted to be perpetuated and the appropriate steps deserves to be taken by the State to restore the user of such land illegally diverted to use for other purposes. The permissibility of the change of the user of the land earmarked in the scheme under the Master Development Plan for commercial/ residential/institutional/industrial etc. during the currency of the Master Development Plan or at the time of revision thereof (Question No.5) 133. Undoubtedly, the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan are prepared taking into consideration all the relevant aspects at the initial stage including the present requirement and future growth, the development and preservation of the character and resources of the city, the specific areas of concern and overall interest of the community. A Master Development Plan finally approved needs to be a comprehensive and self explanatory document. 134. It goes without saying that land uses in the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan are specified inasmuch as, different land uses have their own requirement and inter mingling thereof is bound to lead to a chaos adversely affecting the quality of life assured to the citizens by way of planned development projected under the plans. For example, when a particular area is earmarked in the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan as residential area and accordingly, a residential colony is developed therein, there is no reason why a commercial activity should be permitted in the residential colony developed by changing the land use to subserve the individual interest sacrificing the interest of the community, who had chosen to settle in exclusive residential colony with the hope that after hectic activities of the day, they will be able to steal a few moments of solace at their abode of joy. 135. It is not that in the residential colony, there cannot be any commercial area, mini markets or other facilities area but then, while undertaking the development and preparing the plan for implementation, all such areas are required to be distinctly marked in the plan of the colony to come up and thereafter, the land use within the colony developed needs to be ceased. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Joshi's case (supra), that once the plan is formulated, one has to implement it adhering to it strictly and it is only in a rarest of the rare case, the departure therefrom is permissible. 136. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Why the change of land use in a particular area earmarked should not be generally permitted. Whenever a plan is prepared, all the infrastructure facilities such as provision for drainage, electricity, lay out of the roads etc., required according to the population density to be settled within the area, are also worked out and planned accordingly. To say the least, by permitting mixed use in exclusive residential colony at the later stage in deviation of the Plan, the residents of the area who have acted upon an assurance for a definite quality of life projected under the housing scheme in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan cannot be made to suffer the life of discomfort as a consequence of unplanned development for no fault on their part. 137. In R.K.Mittal's case (supra), where the question with regard to ambit and scope of the power of the Noida Development Authority to permit users other than residential, in the sector specifically marked for residential use in the Master Plan of New Okhla Industrial Development Area, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the various aspects of the town planning with reference to the relevant statute, emphasised that when a Master Plan is to be amended, the entire prescribed procedure must be followed and the exercise of the power should be only in consonance with settled norms without going beyond the original power of the development authority to make such plan in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The court observed that where the requisite prescribed procedure is followed, still the discretion should be exercised sparingly for achieving the object and not to completely vary or destruct the purpose for which the sector has been earmarked. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the regulatory functions being discharged by the Development Authority regarding the exercise of the discretion to change designate user of a site under the Master Plan, observed: “47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the regulatory functions being discharged by the Development Authority regarding the exercise of the discretion to change designate user of a site under the Master Plan, observed: “47. All the above judgments clearly show that it is not merely at the discretion of the Development Authority concerned to designate of a site and then alter the same without following due process of law. Even where such an exercise is required to be undertaken by the Development Authority, there also it is expected of the Development Authority to act for the betterment of the public and strictly in accordance with the plans and the statutory provisions. It cannot take recourse to its powers and use its discretion contrary to such provisions and that too, to frustrate the very object of the Act. Exercise of power ought not to be destructive of the provisions of the Act and the plans having the force of law. We would hasten to add that even where the requisite prescribed procedure is followed, still the discretion should be exercised sparingly for achieving the object of the statute and not to completely vary or destruct the purpose for which the sector has been earmarked. .....xxxxxx..... 49. The Development Authority is inter alia performing regulatory functions. There has been imposition of statutory duties on the power of this regulatory exercising specified regulatory functions. Such duties and activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent. It should target those cases in which action is called for and the same be exercised free of arbitrariness. The Development Authority is vested with drastic regulatory powers to investigate, make regulations, impute fault and even to impose penalties of a grave nature to an extent of cancelling the lease. The principles of administrative justice squarely apply to such functioning and are subject to judicial review. The Development Authority, therefore, cannot transgress its power as stipulated in law and act in a discriminatory manner. The Development Authority should always be reluctant to mould the statutory provisions for individuals, or even the public convenience as this would bring an inbuilt element of arbitrariness into the action of the authorities. Permitting mixed user, where the Master Plan does not so provide, would be glaring example of this kind. ....xxxx..... 55. The Development Authority should always be reluctant to mould the statutory provisions for individuals, or even the public convenience as this would bring an inbuilt element of arbitrariness into the action of the authorities. Permitting mixed user, where the Master Plan does not so provide, would be glaring example of this kind. ....xxxx..... 55. It is settled position of law that no authority can exercise the power vested in it, contrary to law. In the present case, there appears to be no proper data collected or study carried out by the Development Authority even for mooting such a proposal, much less amending the Plan or the Regulations. It is a mater of regret that the Development Authority is dealing with such serious matters in such a casual manner. Either way, this certainly affected the rights of the parties adversely. It is not only the rights of individuals which are to be examined by the authorities concerned, but also the effect of such amendment on the residential sector as a whole which is one of the relevant factors to be considered. ....xxxxx... 59. All the cases where banks, nursing homes or any commercial activity is being carried on, particularly like the appellants' case, where a bank and company are running their offices in the residential sectors would amount to change of user and thus be impermissible. The officers of the Development Authority should refrain from carving out exceptions to the implementation of the Master Plan and the Regulations in force, that too without the authority of law. For taking up any exercise for change of user or such similar conditions, amendment to the relevant Regulations, Master Plan and if needed, the provisions of the Act, is a condition precedent. It should be ensured that such exercise would further the cause and object of the Act and would not be destructive to the scheme of the development. We have no hesitation in our minds in holding that no such jurisdiction or authority vests in the officers of the Development Authority to permit change of users in its discretion and in violation of the law in force. .....xxx.....xxxxxx. 68. The Master Plan and the zonal plan specify the user as residential and therefore these plots cannot be used for any other purpose. The plans have a binding effect in law. .....xxx.....xxxxxx. 68. The Master Plan and the zonal plan specify the user as residential and therefore these plots cannot be used for any other purpose. The plans have a binding effect in law. If the scheme/master plan is being nullified by arbitrary acts and in excess in derogation of the power of the Development Authority under law, the Court will intervene and would direct such authorities to take appropriate action and wherever necessary even quash the orders of the public authorities. .....xxxxx....... 72. From the above dictum of this Court, it is clear that environmental impact, convenience of the residents and ecological impact are relevant considerations for the courts while deciding such an issue. The law imposes an obligation upon the Development Authority to strictly adhere to the plan, regulations and the provisions of the Act. Thus, it cannot ignore its fundamental duty by doing acts impermissible in law. There is not even an iota of reason stated in the affidavits filed on behalf of the Development Authority as to why the public notice had been issued without amending the relevant provisions that too without following the procedure prescribed under the law. 73. The concept of public accountability and performance of public duties in accordance with law and for the larger public good are applicable to the statutory bodies as well as to the authorities functioning therein. We find no justification, whatsoever, for the respondents to act arbitrarily in treating equals who are similarly placed as unequals. This is also no justification for the Development Authority to issue a public notice in the fashion in which it has done. A few officers of the Development Authority cannot collectively act in violation of the law and frustrate the very object and purpose of the Master Plan in force, the Regulations and provisions of the Act.” (emphasis added) 138. This is also no justification for the Development Authority to issue a public notice in the fashion in which it has done. A few officers of the Development Authority cannot collectively act in violation of the law and frustrate the very object and purpose of the Master Plan in force, the Regulations and provisions of the Act.” (emphasis added) 138. In view of the discussion above, we are firmly of the opinion that the defined land uses in the Master Development Plan form part of basic character of the plan and cannot be permitted to be altered at the whims and fancy of the JDA or other local authorities so as to serve the individual interest and thus, frustrating the legislative intent of planned development, sought to be materialized by implementation of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan, the statutory documents creating hope in the minds of the citizen that it will be strictly implemented so as to achieve the goal of a quality life for them. The discretion vested with the authority of the State Government to effect the change of land use cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The change of the land use in the residential colony developed in conformity with the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan cannot be permitted from residential to commercial or any other uses in casual manner so as to serve the individual interest adversely affecting rights of the residents already settled in the exclusive residential area. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.Mittal’s case (supra), permitting mixed user, where the Master Development Plan does not so provide would be per se arbitrary and illegal. The construction of multi-storey building in the existing residential colonies developed with the infrastructure keeping in view the density of the population to be settled therein. (Question No.6) 139. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.K.Mittal’s case (supra), permitting mixed user, where the Master Development Plan does not so provide would be per se arbitrary and illegal. The construction of multi-storey building in the existing residential colonies developed with the infrastructure keeping in view the density of the population to be settled therein. (Question No.6) 139. The sufferings of a common man on account of unplanned development in local authorities permitting the construction of multi-storey buildings in the existing residential colonies with the infrastructure developed, keeping in view the individual family units to be settled in the houses to be constructed is aptly expressed by two lines written by a legendary poet Shri Javed Akhtar : ^^Å¡ph bZekjrksas ls edka esjk f?kj x;k] dqN yksx esjs fgLls dk lwjt Hkh [kk x;sA^^ The urban development planning could be seen with three level hierarchy namely, Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plans and plans for specific scheme. Obviously, when a scheme for developing a residential colony is framed and approved, the provision for requirement of infrastructure facilities including open spaces, parks, major roads and sub roads, traffic movement, the water supply, sewerage etc. is determined with the reference to number of family units/inhabitants to be settled in the houses to be constructed on the plots allotted. It goes without saying that the norms for infrastructure facilities for multi-storey building where the number of family units to be settled is much higher shall be different than the infrastructure facilities required for number of individual family units to be settled in the individual houses to be constructed as proposed in the scheme and therefore, if muti-storey buildings are permitted to be constructed in a residential colony developed with the infrastructure keeping in view the individual family units to be settled in the houses constructed, such unplanned development is bound to slide towards chaos, jeopardising the quality of life assured to the citizens deciding to settle in the residential colony to come up under the approved scheme. It cannot be disputed that the population growth and migration to the cities may necessitate vertical development i.e. construction of multi storey buildings but then, such development must conform to the basic objective of the planned development i.e. to ensure quality of life to the residents by preserving/creating the healthful environment. It cannot be disputed that the population growth and migration to the cities may necessitate vertical development i.e. construction of multi storey buildings but then, such development must conform to the basic objective of the planned development i.e. to ensure quality of life to the residents by preserving/creating the healthful environment. As a matter of fact, the citizens who while spending their hard earn money purchase a plot and decide to settle in a residential colony with projected infrastructure facilities as per the lay out plan duly approved, obviously acquire a right to avail the facilities assured and therefore, if the same is permitted to be interfered with by indiscriminate, unplanned and uncontrolled development, they will feel cheated. 140. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that in the existing residential colonies which are developed with the infrastructure facilities keeping in view, the number of family units to be settled in such colonies, no multi storey buildings should be permitted to come up adversely affecting the rights of the citizens to live the quality of life assured to them. Permissibility of the development of private or public colony on the land having area less than the reasonable area required for developing a colony with requisite facilities (Question No.7) 141. The object underlying the relevant statutes in setting up of the Development Authorities and Improvement Trusts is to ensure orderly, planned and rapid development of the towns/cities as also to check unplanned and haphazard growth and to do all such other acts and things which are necessary to achieve the object of planned development. The planned development pre-supposes that whenever any residential scheme is approved, the authorities concerned shall ensure that adequate provision is made therein for open spaces, parks, playgrounds, civic amenities, roads, sewerage, adequate water and electricity supply and the colony developed is properly connected to the main roads and the surrounding areas. Thus, any residential area to be developed or approved by the town planning or local authorities must conform to the norms laid down under Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan and the township policy. Thus, any residential area to be developed or approved by the town planning or local authorities must conform to the norms laid down under Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan and the township policy. Obviously, if the colonies are permitted to be developed in the small areas, it would be impossible for the local authority or private colonizer to provide for the requisite facilities noticed hereinabove and therefore, it is quint essential that whenever the layout plan for development of any area as residential area is prepared, the authority concerned must first undertake the exercise for environment impact assessment and no layout plan of the development to be undertaken should be approved without there being the adequate provisions for requisite infrastructure facilities and amenities contemplated under the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan for the development of the area for the purpose specified with reference to the population density. 142. In Bondu Ramaswamy's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of unauthorised and illegal development and the development of the colonies by the private developers in the small area ranging from 2 to 15 acres, emphasised that the small unauthorised layouts without any basic amenities must be discouraged. The court observed: “129. The object of establishing a Development Authority like BDA is to provide for orderly and planned development so that the haphazard growth of a city is checked. The disastrous effects of unauthorised and illegal development by some unscrupulous colonisers/developers are well known. In a planned and authorised standard residential development, about 30% to 35% of the total area is used to provide broad and adequate roads and footpaths, drains, etc., and at least another 10% to 15% of the land is earmarked for parks, playgrounds and community development or civic amenities (schools, hospitals, police stations, post offices, minimarkets, community halls, etc.). Further, the layout will have adequate provision for drainage of rainwater as well as sewerage water, adequate supply and electricity, well-laid metalled roads which properly connect the layout to main roads and other surrounding areas, by providing approaches and linkages. 130. But in an unauthorised or illegal development, the roads are narrow and minimal, virtually no open spaces for parks and playgrounds, and no area earmarked for civic amenities. 130. But in an unauthorised or illegal development, the roads are narrow and minimal, virtually no open spaces for parks and playgrounds, and no area earmarked for civic amenities. There will be no proper water supply or drainage; and there be a mixed use of the area for residential, commercial and industrial purposes converting the entire are into a polluting concrete jungle. The entries and exists from the layouts will be bottlenecks leading to traffic jams. Once such illegal colonies come up with poor infrastructure and amenities, it will not be possible to either rectify and connect the mistakes in planning nor provide any amenities even in future. Residents of such unauthorised layouts are forever condemned to a life of misery and discomfort. It is to avoid such haphazard, unhealthy development activities by greedy illegal colonisers and ignorant landowners, the State Legislatures provided for city improvement trusts and Development Authorities so that they could develop well planned citizens-friendly layouts with all amenities and facilities. 131. In this background large tracts of lands running into hundreds of acres are acquired to have integrated layouts. Only when a layout is formed on a large scale, adequate provision can be made for good-size parks, playgrounds and community/civic amenities. For example, if a layout is made in 1000 acres of land, the developer can provide a good-sized park of twenty acres and one or two small parks of 2 to 5 acres, have playgrounds of 5 to 10 acres. Instead of such an integrated large layout, if 200 small individual layouts are made in areas ranging from 2 to 10 acres, there will obviously be no provision for a park or a playground nor any space for civic amenities. Further, small private colonies/layouts will not have well aligned uniform roads and accesses. While it is true that municipal and town planning authorities can be strict monitoring and licensing procedures arrest haphazard development, it is seldom done. That is why formation of small layouts by developers is discourages and Development Authorities take up large-scale developments. 132. If 200 acres of land on the outskirts of a city has to be developed, and if 30 to 50 private developers proceed to develop areas ranging from 2 to 15 acres, it will be impossible for them to provide for parks or any playgrounds of reasonable size or make provision for planned civic amenities. 132. If 200 acres of land on the outskirts of a city has to be developed, and if 30 to 50 private developers proceed to develop areas ranging from 2 to 15 acres, it will be impossible for them to provide for parks or any playgrounds of reasonable size or make provision for planned civic amenities. Further, there will be no alignment in regard to roads. Each layout will have roads to suit their own convenience and this will lead to misalignment and bottlenecks leading to traffic snarls. The width of the roads also will differ from layout to layout depending upon the “greed” of each private developer, resulting in the size, shape and alignment of roads varying for every stretch of 200 to 500 metres. There will be no proper drainage of rainwater or sewerage water leading to constant flooding or stagnation. Therefore large integrated layouts were found to be the answer for orderly development. No small developer can develop a good township in a few acres of land. It was also though that developers will be mainly profit motivated and will try to minimise the roads, open spaces and community areas. It is therefore that legislature constituted statutory Development Authorities to undertake large-scale developments without any profit motive. 133. If authorities like BDA notify 3000 acres of land for development and then delete from the proposed acquisition several pockets which aggregate to about 1000 to 1500 acres, then the result is obvious. There will be no integrated development at all. What was intended to be a uniform, contiguous and continuous layout of 3000 acres will get split into small pockets which are not connected with the other pockets or will be intersected by own illegal pockets of private colonies thereby perpetuating what was intended to be prevented, that is, haphazard growth without proper infrastructure. It will then not be possible to provide proper road connections and drainage and impossible to provide appropriate parks, playgrounds and civic amenities of appropriate and adequate size and situation. When a Development Authority starts developing pockets of lands measuring 2 acres to 5 acres, obviously it also cannot provide open spaces and civic amenities and may end up with one pocket having plots, another far away pocket having a playground and another far away pocket having a park and their being no uniformity or continuity of roads. When a Development Authority starts developing pockets of lands measuring 2 acres to 5 acres, obviously it also cannot provide open spaces and civic amenities and may end up with one pocket having plots, another far away pocket having a playground and another far away pocket having a park and their being no uniformity or continuity of roads. As noticed above, a large layout enables formation of long and straight roads for easy movement of traffic. On the other hand, short and disjointed roads affects smooth movement of traffic. 134. Therefore, if a Development Authority, having acquired a large tract of land withdraws or deletes huge chunks, the development by the Development Authority will resemble haphazard developments by unscrupulous private developers rather than being a planned and orderly development expected from a Development Authority. Therefore when a large layout is being planned, the Development Authorities should exercise care and caution in deleting large number of pocket/chunks of land in the middle of the proposed layout. There is no point in proposing a planned layout but then deleting various portions of land in the middle merely on the ground that there is a small structure of 100 sq ft or 200 sq ft which may be authorised or unauthorised. Such deletions make a mockery of development. Further, such deletions/exclusions encourage corruption and favouritism and bring discontent among those who are not favourably treated.” (emphasis added) 143. In the considered opinion of this court, on account of the population growth and migration to the cities, the basic object of the enactment i.e. planned development cannot be set at naught by permitting small colonies to come up with no infrastructure facilities and the civic amenities and precipitate a situation where the residents are condemned to live a miserable life in unhealthy environment. In this view of the matter, it is need of the time that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case (supra), instead of permitting the small colonies coming up in small area with no infrastructure facilities, the authorities should undertake the exercise for approval of integrated layouts of the residential and other schemes either by acquisition of the land or by undertaking the exercise of the land pooling. But, in any case, the development of number of colonies in small area without integrated layout plan for the infrastructure facilities and civic amenities necessary for the residents to be settled in conformity with the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan for various zones of the city leading to haphazard growth, has to be discouraged. The shifting of industrial areas located in the close vicinity of the city settlements to outside the urbanisable area shown in the Master Development Plan (Question No.8) 144. Indisputably, the setting up of industries should be permitted only in conforming areas i.e. the industrial areas earmarked for the purpose in the Master Development Plan and functioning of any unauthorised industrial activity in residential area cannot be permitted. But then, the issue raised by the learned Amicus Curiae is not with regard to the unauthorised activities being carried out in the residential area rather, the issue raised is with regard to the shifting of the industrial area already developed, which are located in close vicinity of the residential area. There is no specific details regarding such industrial areas which are located close to the residential colonies in any of the major cities and need to be shifted are available on record and therefore, at this stage, this court is not inclined to issue any general directions for shifting of the industrial areas as prayed for. It would be appropriate that the matter with regard to shifting of the hazardous industries/industrial areas in close vicinity of the residential colonies, is appropriately dealt with by the State Government by framing Relocation Scheme, after conducting a survey in all the major cities by constituting a high power committee. Adherence to the norms laid down for providing green belt abutting the highway (Question No.9) 145. Indisputably, specific provisions are incorporated in the Master Development Plans of the major cities that the land in the width of 100 ft. abutting the highways after right to way shall be left open as green belt for dense plantation and the development work as permissible shall be undertaken only on the land after the green belt. As a matter of fact, the violation of the norms laid down as also the necessity to take appropriate measures to implement the norms laid down strictly and to undo the violation made is not even disputed before this court. As a matter of fact, the violation of the norms laid down as also the necessity to take appropriate measures to implement the norms laid down strictly and to undo the violation made is not even disputed before this court. To the contrary, learned AAG has taken the specific stand that the norms laid down for providing green belt on both the sides of the highways have to be followed and therefore, appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure the implementation of the norms and for removal of the constructions, if any raised, in violation of the norms. In this view of the matter, this court is not required to dilate on the issue any further. The encroachment made on footpath/public ways by putting stairs, ramps and hoardings or the personal user thereof by putting fencing (Question No.10) 146. It is well settled that the footpaths and public roads are meant for convenience of public at large and no private person can be allowed to make unauthorised use of the same for personal use. As a matter of fact, every citizen has right to pass over the footpaths and public ways and custody thereof with the State and the Local Authorities is in realm of public trust and therefore, what to say of private individuals even, the State Government and Local Authorities are yoked under an inhibition not to put any structure on footpaths and public ways, which is not necessary for regulating and maintaining the user thereof. Every inch of the land forming part of footpaths and public ways has to be preserved and maintained meticulously and therefore, the State Government and the Local Authorities, who are under an obligation to check growth of unauthorised encroachment made by unscrupulous persons on footpaths and public ways and remove the same, cannot shirk from their responsibility to take the appropriate measures in this regard. 147. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the tendency to occupy unauthorisedly the land forming part of footpaths and public ways, is rampant in various cities of the State and one hardly finds enough space on the footpaths and public ways which is creating numerous traffic hazards and the pedestrians are compelled to move in the midst of vehicular traffic endangering their life. We are constraint to observe that this tendency to encroach upon the footpaths and public ways amongst the unscrupulous citizens is flourishing because of deleterious inaction and tacit support of the persons at the helm of affairs in the local authorities. 148. To conclude, it is high time that the menace of encroachment and unauthorised construction over the footpath and public way is viewed seriously and dealt with strictly. 149. As noticed herein above, during the course of hearing, learned AAG has assured that the encroachment made on footpaths and public way by putting stairs, ramps, hoardings or fencing in various cities and towns of the State by the unscrupulous persons shall be removed and therefore, no further dilation on the issue is considered necessary. Restoration of parking spaces in the buildings constructed put to other use (Question No.11) 150. Undoubtedly, with the growing high number of vehicle ownerships in the major cities, parking has become a conflicting and confusing situation for the public at large. Each development must provide adequate parking spaces to meet the parking needs of the occupiers, tenants and visitors/customers. That apart, the developer must ensure the provision of a safe and functional parking place layout to facilitate smooth and convenient passage for the vehicles. Parking provisions serving a development must be made concurrent or prior to the completion within the site of development use. Deletion or conversion of existing parking spaces for other use needs to be viewed seriously. 151. It is really unfortunate that at the time of sanction of the plan, the provision is made for adequate parking spaces as prescribed by the State Government or the Local Authority concerned under the Building Bylaws, but over the years, a tendency is developing among the developers to delete or reduce the parking spaces while undertaking constructions or the parking spaces provided are being diverted to other uses. It is really strange that ignoring stringent statutory provisions providing for compulsory parking space in every building constructed, the unscrupulous developers with the connivance of the officials of local authorities are violating the parking space norms with impunity, which is creating a great traffic congestion in all major cities of the State. 152. It is really strange that ignoring stringent statutory provisions providing for compulsory parking space in every building constructed, the unscrupulous developers with the connivance of the officials of local authorities are violating the parking space norms with impunity, which is creating a great traffic congestion in all major cities of the State. 152. It is to be noticed that by way of Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2010, for ensuring the provision of parking spaces in all the buildings constructed within the municipal area, the State Legislature has inserted Section 238-A in the Act No.18 of 2009, which reads as under: “238-A. Provision of parking space.-(1) In every building constructed in a municipal area after the commencement of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Act No.19 of 2010), it shall be compulsory to provide such parking space as may be prescribed by the State Government: Provided that the State Government may, having regard to the area of land and situation and use of building, exempt, by notification in the Official Gazette, any building or class of buildings from the provisions of this section. (2) The Municipality shall not grant any permission under Sec. 194 unless the person seeking permission makes provision for parking space as prescribed under sub-sec. (1) in the maps and required under that section and undertakes to provide such parking space and furnishes security for the same to the satisfaction of the Municipality. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec. 194 or any other provision of this Act, every owner of the building, for which provision of parking space is compulsory under the provisions of this section, shall, after completion of such building, obtain a completion certificate in the prescribed manner and no such building shall be occupied unless and until such certificate has been obtained. (4) The officer or authority authorized to issue completion certificate certificate under sub-section (3) shall not issue such certificate unless he is satisfied that parking space as prescribed under sub-sec.(1) has been provided in the building. (5) Any development of land in a municipal area made or continued in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be an unauthorized development for the purpose of this Act. (5) Any development of land in a municipal area made or continued in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be an unauthorized development for the purpose of this Act. (6) No permanent water connection from any public water supply system shall be permitted in a building, for which provision of parking space is compulsory under the provisions of this section, unless the owner or occupier thereof produces a completion certificate issued under sub-sec.(3). (7) Any person who contravenes any provision of this section shall, on conviction and without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment which may extent to seven days or with fine which shall not be less than rupees twenty five thousand but which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.” 153. Similarly, by way of Jaipur Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2010, by inserting Section 37B in the Act No.25 of 1982, the similar provision is made regarding compulsory parking in every building constructed. 154. That apart, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 95 read with Section 37B of the Act No.25 of 1982, the State Government has framed Jaipur Development Authority (Provision of Parking Space) Rules, 2011, which while specifying the parking space requirement in commercial buildings and other than commercial buildings, specifically mandates that after construction of the building, the owner shall make an application to the authority for issuance of Completion Certificate and after inspection of the building and on being satisfied that the provisions of Section 37B of the Act No.25 of 1982, has been complied with, the officer is authorised by JDA in this behalf, shall issue such certificate. 155. Further, as per sub-section (5) of Section 37B of the Act No.25 of 1982, any development land in Jaipur Region made or continued in contravention of the provisions of the said section shall be deemed to be an unauthorised development for the purposes of the Act and the JDA is empowered to seal the unauthorised development by virtue of provisions of Section 34A of the Act No.25 of 1982 and JDA (Sealing of Unauthorised Development) Rules, 2011. 156. 156. We are constrained to observe that though the legislature has enacted the law for ensuring the provisions for adequate parking space in every building constructed within the municipal area, the enforcement thereof has been extremely poor and the norms laid down are being violated by the developers with impunity, which is resulting in chaotic situation inasmuch as, major area of roads in the major cities are taken up just for parking of the vehicles and therefore, it is high time that the law enacted in this regard is strictly enforced and besides the stern action against the violators, the responsibility of the erring officials of local authorities who permit such buildings to come up without adequate provision for parking spaces, is also properly fixed. Needless to say that while enforcing the provisions incorporated as aforesaid to ensure adequate parking spaces in the buildings already constructed, the local authorities are under an obligation to take all appropriate measures in accordance with law to restore the position of the parking spaces as per the plan sanctioned, put to any other use. Permissibility of compounding of unauthorised construction raised in deviation of the Mater Plan, Zonal Development Plan, sanctioned plan of the building without approval of the building plan and/or in violation of the Building Bye Laws (Question No.12) 157. Undoubtedly, the menace of unauthorised pellmell construction in deviation of the Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plan and the building plans duly sanctioned by the local authority in conformity with the Building By-laws, by the unscrupulous persons with the tacit support of officials of local authority concerned is playing havoc with the life of a common man. It is really unfortunate that the local authorities which are under the legal obligation to at once remove the unauthorised constructions in conformity with the provisions of the law made in this regard and the state authorities, who are lawfully bound to watch law and order, do not strive in this direction, which besides creating numerous hazards for the health and safety of general public, are polluting the environment and ruining the beauty of the cities to an irredeemable degree. 158. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma's case (supra), the planned development is the crucial zone that strikes a balance between the needs of large scale urbanization and individual buildings. 158. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma's case (supra), the planned development is the crucial zone that strikes a balance between the needs of large scale urbanization and individual buildings. It is the science and aesthetics of urbanization as it saves the development from chaos and uglification. 159. Coming to the statutory provisions, the construction of the buildings in the municipal areas is governed by Section 194 of the Act No.18 of 2009. As per mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 194, any person intending to erect a new building or to re-erect or make material addition in any building or any projecting portion of a building or any tower or any similar structure on any land or building is under an obligation to seek permission of the Municipality before starting the construction. As per the Explanation attached to sub-section (1) of Section 194, any changes in existing setbacks, coverage, height, land use and parking area wherever parking areas are mandatory under the law, shall fall within the definition of 'material addition'. Sub-section (7) of Section 194, mandates that no person shall commence any type of construction without written permission of the Municipality. The plan for erection/re-erection of the building or for material addition has to be in conformity with the Building By-laws of the Municipality and no plan in deviation of the Building By-laws is permissible to be sanctioned by the Municipality and for this reason, even where a person becomes entitled to raise construction under the deemed permission of the Municipality, it is specifically provided under the clause (c) of sub-section (7) of Section 194 that he shall not violate any provision of the Act, rules or by-laws made thereunder. The commencement, continuance or completion of any kind of erection, re-erection or material alteration in a building or part thereof or erection or re-erection of any projecting of a building in respect of which Municipality is empowered under Section 192 to enforce removal of the projecting part or restoration to regular line of setback in violation of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 194, are offences punishable under clause (a) to (d) of subsection (10) of Section 194. As per clause (g) of subsection (10) of Section 194, an employee of the Municipality who has been assigned duties for a particular area and made responsible for reporting the matter of violation of the provisions of the said section, is under an obligation to ensure that such violations are reported properly without delay and the same are entered in the register kept for the purpose and take necessary action to stop unauthorised construction and if it is proved that he willfully or knowingly ignored to stop such unauthorised construction and to make a report shall be liable to be punished in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (18) of Section 245 of the Act No.18 of 2009. Under sub-section (18) of Section 245, a person on conviction, is liable to be punished for a term which shall not be less than three months which may extend to three years or with fine which may extent to thirty thousand rupees or both. That apart, under clause (h) of sub-section (10) of Section 194, the Municipality is empowered to stop any work commenced without permission or violating the norms of sanctioned map or without submitting an application and further under clause (i) thereof, in addition to prosecution of defaulter, the Municipality is empowered to demolish whole or part of the construction which has come up without permission or violating the permission or where permission was sought by fraud etc. as mentioned in the said section. 160. It is relevant to mention here that beside the provisions regarding regulation of construction as contained in Section 194, the Act No.18 of 2009 incorporates various provisions regulating the development of the city/town including prescribing a line on either side or both sides of the street within the municipal area, compulsory provisions for footpaths, setbacks and projection of the buildings and parking places etc.. 161. It goes without saying that once the plan for erection/re-erection of the building or to make a material addition in building or the erection/re-erection of the projecting portion of the building is sanctioned by the Municipality in conformity with the provisions of the Act, rules and the by-laws made thereunder, it must be executed strictly and any deviation therefrom could be permitted only in the rarest of rare case after following the procedure laid down under the law. 162. 162. Learned AAG has emphasised that the statutes permits compounding of unauthorised construction and therefore, the local authorities cannot be restrained from regularising the illegal construction raised in accordance with law and therefore, at this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Act No.25 of 1982, Act No.2 of 2009, Act No.39 of 2013, the UIT Act, Act No.18 of 2009 and the Rules made thereunder, dealing with the unauthorised development/constructions. 163. Section 33A of the Act No.25 of 1982, Section 34 of the Act No.2 of 2009 and Section 34 of Act No.39 of 2013 and Section 73B of UIT Act, which permits composition of unauthorised development without permission or which is not in accordance with any permissions granted or is in contravention of any condition subject to which permission has been granted, have already been dealt with by us while dealing with the issue relating to the modification/revision of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and therefore, it is not necessary to enter into the discussion on the said issue all over again. 164. So far as Act No.18 of 2009 is concerned, the compounding/compromise of any offence committed under the Act or any By-law made thereunder, is dealt with by Section 299, which reads as under: “299. Powers with respect to prosecuting for offences.- A Municipality may- (a) compromise with any person who in the opinion of the Municipality has committed an offence punishable under this Act or any bye-law thereunder and on such compromise no proceedings shall be taken against such person in respect of such offence; (b) withdraw prosecutions under this Act or under any bye-law made thereunder; (c) compound any offence against this Act or against any bye-law made thereunder which may, by rules made by the State Government, be declared compoundable; Provided that the State Government may make rules to regulate the proceedings of persons empowered to compromise offences under this section.” 165. It is to be noticed that the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 297 read with Section 266 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (the Act No.38 of 1959), which stands repealed by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 344 of the Act No.18 of 2009, had framed 'Rajasthan Municipalities (Compounding and Compromising of Offences) Rules, 1966' ('the Rules of 1966'). 166. 166. The provisions of Section 266 of the Act No.38 of 1959 and Rules 4 & 5 of the Rules of 1966, germane to the determination of the issue raised, are quoted hereunder: Section 266 of the Act No.38 of 1959 “Section 266. Power to compound offences: A board may; (a) compromise with any person who in the opinion of the board has committed an offence punishable under this Act or any bye-law thereunder and on such compromise no proceeding shall be taken against such person in respect of such offence; (b) withdraw from prosecutions instituted under this Act or under any bye-law made thereunder; (c) compound any offence against this Act or against any bye-law made thereunder which may, by rule made by the State Government, be declared compoundable: Provided that the State Government may make rules to regulate the proceedings of persons empowered to compromise offences under this section.” Rules 4 & 5 of the Rules of 1966 “4. Offences which may be compounded or compromised.- (1) Offence punishable under the provision of the Act and/or any rules or bye-laws made thereunder except under sections 165(4) and 203 shall be compoundable or compromisable. (2) The offences under section 170 may be compounded or compromised by the Board on the following basis:- (i) In the case of constructions put up after obtaining sanction but in which minor deviations have been made from the sanctioned plan and such deviations do not contravene any bye-law rule, policy or resolution of the board. No compensation should be charged if the party concerned makes an application along with sanctioned plans, within one month requesting that such deviations should be sanctioned and regularised. Corrections in the sanctioned plan may be made departmentally at his cost. (ii) In cases of unauthorised constructions which do not offend against bye laws in which no application for sanction had been made. May be condoned on payment of 5% of the cost of unauthorized constructions as compensation subject to the minimum of Rs.5/-. (iii) In cases of unauthorized constructions which do not offend against bye-laws but which were continued inspite of prohibitory notice to stop constructions. May be condoned on payment of 7.5% of the cost on unauthorized constructions as compensation subject minimum of Rs.5/-. (iv) The unauthorised constructions which offend against by-laws. (iii) In cases of unauthorized constructions which do not offend against bye-laws but which were continued inspite of prohibitory notice to stop constructions. May be condoned on payment of 7.5% of the cost on unauthorized constructions as compensation subject minimum of Rs.5/-. (iv) The unauthorised constructions which offend against by-laws. Should not, as a rule, be allowed to stand, but if however, it is considered desirable to condone such constructions on payment of compensation on the request of the party may be considered, and the compensation in such cases shall not be less than 25% of the cost of the unauthorized construction as may be considered on merits of each such case. (v) The unauthorized constructions which offend against bye-laws and which were continued in spite of prohibitory notice to stop construction. Should also not, as a rule, be allowed to stand, but if however, it is considered desirable to condone on payment of compensation such constructions at the request of the party, may be considered and the compensation in such cases shall not be less than 33-1.3% of the cost of unauthorized constructions as may be considered on merits of each such case. 5. Power to compound or compromise offences.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 4, a Board may accept from any person in respect of whom there is reasonable ground to believe that he has committed act or omission made punishable under the Act or bye-laws made thereunder a sum of money by way of compensation therefore. (2) On payment of such sum no further proceedings shall be taken against the offender in respect of the offence so compounded or compromised. (3) Sums paid by way of compensation under these rules shall be credited to the Municipal Fund.” 167. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 299 of the Act No.18 of 2009, makes it abundantly clear that same are pari materia to the provisions of Section 266 of the Act No.38 of 1959 and therefore by virtue of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 344 to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act No.18 of 2009 stand saved. 168. 168. The question remains for consideration of this court is to what extent the unauthorised construction raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan or the Building By-laws of the municipality concerned is permissible to be compounded under the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1966. 169. A bare look at the provisions of Section 194 of the Act No.18 of 2009, makes it abundantly clear that statutory mandate is that the erection, re-erection of the building, material addition therein or erection reerection of any projecting building etc. is not permitted unless the plan thereof is duly sanctioned by the Municipality concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down. Obviously, the Municipality concerned is not empowered to sanction any plan in deviation of the Building By-laws of the Municipality, if any framed and further, any construction which falls within the purview of sub-section (5) of Section 194 i.e. a multi storied building (above height of 15 meters) or any institutional complex or commercial complex in an area more than 500 sq. meters cannot be permitted by the municipality without obtaining advice of Regional Town Planner of the State Government and the Municipality is under an obligation to ensure that the proposed plan and construction is not inconsistent with the Rules, By-laws and public convenience. Suffice it to say that while permitting the construction, the Municipality concerned is under a statutory obligation not to sanction any construction proposed to be raised which is in violation of the provisions of the Act, rules, by-laws made thereunder or public convenience. 170. Coming to the compounding power of the Municipality, it is pertinent to note that by virtue of clause (a) of Section 299 of the Act No.18 of 2009, the Municipality is empowered to enter into compromise with any person who has committed an offence punishable under the Act or any By-law thereunder and by virtue of clause (c), it may compound any offence against the Act or By-laws made thereunder which by Rules made by the State Government, be declared compoundable and further that on the Municipality entering into a compromise or compounding, no proceedings shall be taken against such person in respect of such offence. 171. 171. At this stage, it is essential to notice that Section 337 of the Act No.18 of 2009, empowers the State Government to make Rules or orders generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Obviously, the provisions of Section 194 regulating the constructions to be raised within the municipal area have been incorporated to ensure planned development for the convenience of the public at large. It cannot be disputed that the Building By-laws framed by the Municipality, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects for planned development, duly approved by the State Government, are required to be strictly followed and neither the Municipality is empowered to approve the building plans in deviation of the Master Plan nor any person can claim as a matter of right to raise construction beyond the para meters and norms laid down under the Building By-laws. Thus, the State Government while framing the Rules in exercise of the rule making power under Section 299 of the Act No.18 of 2009, is certainly empowered to frame the Rules for carrying out the object underlying the provisions of Section 194 of the Act i.e. the regulation of the construction within the municipal area strictly in accordance with the para meters laid down by the concerned Municipality regarding the building line in the street, projections, parking places etc. in exercise of the statutory power or the regulation of construction of the building in accordance with the norms laid down under the Building By-laws framed in exercise of the power conferred under the statute and not to frustrate the same. 172. As noticed hereinabove, the commencement of the construction, continuance or completion thereof without sanction of the plan, in contravention of the sanctioned plan or violating norms, conditions and restriction imposed under the Act or rules or the bylaws framed thereunder, are the offences punishable under the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 194. 172. As noticed hereinabove, the commencement of the construction, continuance or completion thereof without sanction of the plan, in contravention of the sanctioned plan or violating norms, conditions and restriction imposed under the Act or rules or the bylaws framed thereunder, are the offences punishable under the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 194. Since, clause (a) of Section 299 empowers the Municipality to enter into compromise with the person who has committed offence punishable under the Act or any By-law thereunder, and by virtue of clause (c) of Section 299, the State Government is empowered to declare any offence under the Act or By-laws to be compoundable, the act of the State Government in framing the Rules of 1966 to regulate the compounding of the offences, which are punishable under the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 194 and thus, absolving the person from any proceedings under the Act in respect of the offence committed, cannot be faulted with. But, the power to compound the offences and consequently, not to take any proceedings against the person who has indulged in commission of offences, does not empower the State Government to frame the Rules permitting compounding of the illegal constructions raised, ignoring the mandate of the provisions of Section 194 incorporated for regulating the planned development and constructions within the municipal area and to ensure the convenience of the public at large. Suffice it to say that the Rules of 1966 framed by the State Government in exercise of its rule making power are permissible to be operated for carrying out the object underlying Section 194 of the Act and not to frustrate the same. In other words, the unauthorised constructions raised, which cannot be otherwise permitted by the Municipality by virtue of the provisions of Section 194 and other ancillary provisions referred to hereinbove and the Building By-laws framed in this regard, cannot be permitted to be compounded. 173. As a matter of fact, in the garb of the Rules of 1966, the local authorities having constitutional status, constituted in the country so as to ensure the interest of general public and enable the local inhabitants to have a say for solving the immediate problem at the local level, due to their indifferent attitudes and deleterious inaction, are making the inhabitants of the local area to suffer immeasurably and the very object of constituting local authorities, is being defeated. 174. Looking to the gravity of the problem, even learned AAG fairly conceded that the enforcement cell of local bodies needs to be strengthened and time bound effective action on violation must be ensured. 175. It is true that the Rules of 1966 enables the Municipalities to compound the unauthorised constructions but the discretion vested in this regard is permissible to be exercised only in furtherance to the ultimate object of planned development sought to be achieved by effective and strict enforcement of the Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plan, the Schemes framed thereunder and the Building By-laws of the Municipality concerned regulating constructions within the local area. 176. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced on the issues relating to menace of unauthorised constructions and permissibility of compounding thereof time and again and therefore, reference of a few decisions cited at the bar would be appropriate at this stage. 177. In Pratibha Cooperative Housing Societies' case (supra), where the petitioner, a cooperative housing society had raised construction of eight floors of the building violating the permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) upholding the action of the Bombay Municipal Corporation in proposing demolition thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: “6. It is an admitted position that six floors have been completely demolished and a part of seventh floor has also been demolished. It was pointed out by Mr.K.K.Singhvi, learned counsel for the Corporation that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions by the builders in violations of the rules and regulations of the Corporation was rampant in the city of Bombay and the Municipal Corporation with its limited sources was finding it difficult to curb such activities. We are also of the view that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and unauthorised encroachments is increasing in the entire country and such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands. Such unlawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. The violation of F.S.I. in the present case was not a minor one but was to an extent of more than 24,000 sq. ft. Such unlawful construction was made by the Housing Society in clear and flagrant violation and disregard of F.S.I. and the order for demolition of eight floors had attained finality right upto this Court. The violation of F.S.I. in the present case was not a minor one but was to an extent of more than 24,000 sq. ft. Such unlawful construction was made by the Housing Society in clear and flagrant violation and disregard of F.S.I. and the order for demolition of eight floors had attained finality right upto this Court. The order for demolition of eight floors has been substantially carried out and we find no jurisdiction to interfere in the order passed by the High Court as well as in the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner dated 13th November, 1990.” (emphasis added) 178. In the matter of M.I.Builders' case (supra), where Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika had entered into an agreement with the builder for construction of an underground shopping complex in a park situated at Amina Bag Market, Lucknow pursuant to the resolution adopted by Mahapalika, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding a Bench decision of High Court of Allahabad holding construction of underground shopping complex illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, observed: “73. The High Court has directed dismantling of the whole project and for restoration of the park to its original condition. This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to 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 dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. As will be seen in moulding the relief in the present case and allowing one of the blocks meant for parking to stand we have been guided by the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika to construct and maintain parking lots.” (emphasis added) 179. As will be seen in moulding the relief in the present case and allowing one of the blocks meant for parking to stand we have been guided by the obligatory duties of the Mahapalika to construct and maintain parking lots.” (emphasis added) 179. In the matter of 'Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa & Ors.', (2004) 8 SCC 733 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “25. Though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned constructions being regularised by compounding but that is by way of exception. Unfortunately, the exception, with the lapse of time and frequent exercise of the discretionary power conferred by such exemption, has become the rule. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some misunderstanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantages suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an individual constructing his own building. A professional builder is supposed to understand the laws better and deviations by such builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits and hence deserve to be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for future. It is common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand dealings. Be that as it may, the State Governments should think of levying heavy penalties on such builders and therefrom develop a welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced on account of demolition of illegal constructions.” (emphasis added) 180. In Shanti Sports Club's case (supra), while dealing with an issue of illegal construction of a commercial complex raised over the acquired land without even making an application to the competent authority for sanction of the building plan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: “74. In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have been seen unplanned growth. In the 21 st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have been seen unplanned growth. In the 21 st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised 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 the 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 congest on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised 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 congest on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasised 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.- K.Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi, G.N.Khajuria (Dr.) v. DDA, M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and S.N.Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka. 75. Unfortunately, despite repeated judgments of this Court and the 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 with 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 wrongdoers either by issuing administrative orders or enacting laws for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised 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.” (emphasis added) 181. 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.” (emphasis added) 181. In Dipak Kumar Mukherjee's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the demolition of illegal constructions and while referring to various earlier decisions of the Court, observed: “8. What needs to be emphasised is that illegal and unauthorised constructions of buildings and other structure not only violate the municipal laws and the concept of planned development of the particular area but also affect various fundamental and constitutional rights of other persons. The common man feels cheated when he finds that those making illegal and unauthorised constructions are supported by the people entrusted with the duty of preparing and executing master plan/development plan/zonal plan. The reports of demolition of hutments and jhuggi jhopris belonging to poor and disadvantaged section of the society frequently appear in the print media but one seldom gets to read about demolition of illegally/unauthorisedly constructed multi-stories structure raised by economically affluent people. The failure of the State apparatus to take prompt action to demolish such illegal constructions has convinced the citizens that planning laws ar enforced only against poor and all compromises are made by the State machinery when it is required to deal with those who have money power or unholy nexus with the power corridors. ......xxxxx..........xxxx... 29. It must be remembered that while preparing master plans/zonal plans, the Planning Authority takes into consideration the prospectus of future development and accordingly provides for basic amenities like water and electricity lines, drainage, sewerage, etc. Unauthorized construction of buildings not only destroys the concept of planned development which is beneficial to the public but also places unbearable which is beneficial to the public but also places unbearable burden on the basic amenities and facilities provided by the public authorities. At times, construction of such buildings becomes hazardous for the public and creates congestion. Therefore, it is imperative for the concerned public authorities not only to demolish such construction but also impose adequate penalty on the wrongdoer.” (emphasis added) 182. At times, construction of such buildings becomes hazardous for the public and creates congestion. Therefore, it is imperative for the concerned public authorities not only to demolish such construction but also impose adequate penalty on the wrongdoer.” (emphasis added) 182. In Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Societies's case (supra), where the builder had raised construction of additional floors in the residential buildings despite rejection of the revised building plans and issuance of the stop-work notice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon its earlier decision in Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 597 held: “3. In Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, this Court noted that the construction had been made in the teeth of notices issued for stopping the unauthorised construction and held that no authority administering municipal laws can regularise the constructions made in violation of the Act. Some of the observations made in that judgment are extracted below: (SCC pp.601-02, paras 7 & 8) “7....... Whatever it be, the fact remains that the construction was made in the teeth of the notices and the directions to stop the unauthorised construction. Thus, the predecessor of the appellant put up the offending construction in a controlled area in defiance of the provisions of law preventing such a construction and in spite of notices and orders to stop the construction activity. The construction put up are thus illegal and unauthorised and put up in defiance of law. The appellant is only an assignee from the person who put up such a construction and his present attempt is to defeat the statute and the statutory scheme of protecting the sides of highways in the interest of the general public and moving traffic on such highways. Therefore, this is a fit case for refusal of interference by this Court against the decision declining the regularisation sought for by the appellant. Such violations cannot be compounded and the prayer of the appellant was rightly rejected by the authorities and the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is time that the message goes abroad that those who defy the law would not be permitted to reap the benefit of their defiance of law and it is the duty of the High Courts to ensure that such defiers of law are not rewarded. It is time that the message goes abroad that those who defy the law would not be permitted to reap the benefit of their defiance of law and it is the duty of the High Courts to ensure that such defiers of law are not rewarded. The High Court was therefore fully justified in refusing to interfere in the matter. The High Court was rightly conscious of its duty to ensure that violators of law do not get away with it. 8. We also find no merit in the argument that regularisation of the acts of violation of the provisions of the Act ought to have been permitted. No authority administering municipal laws and others laws like the Act involved therein, can encourage such violations. Even otherwise, compounding is not to be done when the violations are deliberate, designed, reckless or motivated. Marginal or insignificant accidental violations consciously made after trying to comply with all the requirements of the law can alone qualify for regularisation which is not the rule, but a rare exception. The authorities and the High Court were hence right in refusing the request of the appellant.” ....xxxxx.....xxxxx.... 8. At the outset, we would like to observe that by rejecting the prayer for regularisation of the floors constructed in wanton violation of the sanctioned plan, the Deputy Chief Engineer and the appellate authority have demonstrated their determination to ensure planned development of the commercial capital of the country and the orders passed by them have given a hope to the law-abiding citizens that someone in the hierarchy of administration will not allow unscrupulous developers/builders to take law in their hands and get away with it. ...........xxxxx...............xxxx 56. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioners in the transferred case have failed to make out a case for directing the respondents to regularise the construction made in violation of the sanctioned plan. Rather, the ratio of the abovenoted judgments and, in particular, Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana is clearly attracted in the present case. We would like to reiterate that no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan. Rather, the ratio of the abovenoted judgments and, in particular, Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana is clearly attracted in the present case. We would like to reiterate that no authority administering municipal laws and other similar laws can encourage violation of the sanctioned plan. The courts are also expected to refrain from exercising equitable jurisdiction for regularisation of illegal and unauthorised constructions else it would encourage violators of the planning laws and destroy the very idea and concept of planned development of urban as well as rural areas.” (emphasis added) 183. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue regarding the officers of the statutory body who permits unauthorised constructions coming up unabatedly, in Dr.G.N.Khajuria's case (supra) observed: “10. Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of course, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not, however, have happened for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the citizen concerned, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts others to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite.” (emphasis added) 184. Similarly, in Friends Colony case's case (supra), the Court observed: “26. The application for compounding the deviations made by the builders should always be dealt with at a higher level by a multi-membered High Powered Committee so that the builders cannot manipulate. The officials who have connived at unauthorised or illegal constructions should not be spared. Similarly, in Friends Colony case's case (supra), the Court observed: “26. The application for compounding the deviations made by the builders should always be dealt with at a higher level by a multi-membered High Powered Committee so that the builders cannot manipulate. The officials who have connived at unauthorised or illegal constructions should not be spared. In developing cities the strength of staff which is supposed to keep a watch on building activities should be suitably increased in the interest of constant and vigilant watch on illegal or unauthorised constructions.” (emphasis added) 185. To conclude, it is imperative that the State and the local authorities keep a vigil eye over the unauthorised constructions being raised by unscrupulous persons and any unauthorised construction which destroys the concept of planned development is not permitted to be come up and if any such construction has been raised in deviation of the Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plan and the Building By-laws, is not permitted to be regularised or compounded rather, the same needs to be dealt with strictly. Further, it needs to be ensured that the officials of the local authorities with whose connivance or tacit support, such unauthorised construction is raised, is punished adequately. The vires of the provisions of Section 33A of Act No.25 of 1982, Section 34 of the Act No.2 of 2009 and Section 34 of Act No.39 of 2013, regarding the composition of unauthorised development. (Question No.13) 186. In view of conclusion arrived at by this court while interpreting the provisions of Section 33A of the Act No.25 of 1982 and pari-materia provisions as contained in Section 34 of Act No. 2 of 2009 and Section 34 of Act No.39 of 2013 that the compounding permissible in terms of the said provisions must conform to the land use plan under the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and therefore, unless and until, the unauthorised development sought to be compounded falls within the para meters of permissible modification of the plan as contemplated under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 25 and such modification to the plan is actually effected by following the procedure laid down, no unauthorised development in terms of Section 33A is permissible to be compounded, we are of the opinion that the issue with regard to constitutional validity of the said provisions is not required to be gone into by us. Permissibility of the user of pasture land set apart for grazing of the cattles for other purposes, regularisation thereof and the measures to be adopted for removal of unauthorised occupation over the pasture land (Question No.14) 187. 'Pasture land' as defined by Section 5(28) of the Act of 1955, means land used for grazing of the cattle of a village or villages or recorded in settlement records as such at the commencement of the Act or thereafter reserved as such in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government. 188. As per provisions of Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”), subject to general or special orders of the State Government, the Collector may set apart land for any special purpose such as for free pasturage of cattle, for forest reserve, for development of abadi or for any other public or municipal purpose and such land shall not be used otherwise than for the purpose without the previous sanction of the Collector. 189. Section 16 of the Act of 1955 prohibits accrual of khatedari rights in pasture land. Rule 4 of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 1970 which specifies the categories of the land not available for allotment for agriculture purposes includes the lands mentioned in Section 16 of the Act of 1955 which includes the pasture land as aforesaid. 190. Section 93 of Act of 1956 mandates that the right of grazing on pasturage land shall extend only to the cattle of the village or villages for which such land has been set apart and shall be regulated by the Rules made by the State Government. 191. To give effect to inter-alia the provisions of Clause 28 of Section 5 of the Act of 1955 and regulate the user of the pasture land in exercise of the power conferred under Section 257 of the Act of 1955, the State Government has framed Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (“the Rules of 1955”). 192. As per Rule 7 in Chapter II of the Rules of 1955, the Collector is empowered to change the classification of any pasture land as defined u/s 5(28) or any pasture land set apart u/s 92 of the Act of 1956 as unoccupied culturable government land (Siwai Chak), for allotment for agriculture or any non agricultural purposes. 192. As per Rule 7 in Chapter II of the Rules of 1955, the Collector is empowered to change the classification of any pasture land as defined u/s 5(28) or any pasture land set apart u/s 92 of the Act of 1956 as unoccupied culturable government land (Siwai Chak), for allotment for agriculture or any non agricultural purposes. However, as per first proviso to Rule 7, in case where land sought to be allotted or set apart exceeds 4 hectares, the Collector is under an obligation to obtain prior permission of the State Government. As per second proviso to Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1955, the pasture land falling within the boundary limits of the Jaipur Region as defined under the Act No.25 of 1982 or within the periphery of 2 kms. of the municipality shall not be allotted except for the purpose of public utility institution or for expansion of abadi. Further, sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 mandates that where classification of any pasture land is changed under sub- Rule (1), the Collector may set apart an equal area of unculturable government land if available as pasture land in the same village. 193. That apart, Section 53 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, empowers the Government to make over the management of pasture lands belonging to the Government situated within the panchayat area to the Gram Panchayat. Further, Rule 169 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('Panchayat Rules,1996'), in case, the common grazing ground in any village has not been placed at the disposal of any Panchayat, casts obligations upon the Gram Panchayat to send proposal for the taking over or establishing a new grazing ground to the Tehsildar and on the receipt of the proposal, the Tehsildar is required to take action forthwith and intimate to the Panchayat about the decision taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of proposal from the Panchayat. To check the possible inaction on the part of the Tehsildar, it is further provided that if the sanction is not received by the Panchayat within a period of three months of the submission of the proposal, it may move the Vikas Adhikari, who shall take steps for allotment of grazing grounds. To check the possible inaction on the part of the Tehsildar, it is further provided that if the sanction is not received by the Panchayat within a period of three months of the submission of the proposal, it may move the Vikas Adhikari, who shall take steps for allotment of grazing grounds. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 169, empowers the Panchayat to extend the area of grazing ground in case of increase of cattle heads by adopting the procedure provided in case of establishing a new grazing ground. As per sub-rule (8) of Rule 169, if the pasture land has been occupied unlawfully by a person on the basis of the survey conducted under Rule 165 of the Panchayat Rules, 1996, the Panchayat is mandated to make an application in this regard to the concerned Tehsildar. Thus, besides the provisions being incorporated for preservation of pasture land, the provisions are incorporated for extension of the area of pasturage so as to ensure vegetation in abundance to feed the livestock. 194. Thus, to sum up, the pasture land is meant for grazing of the cattles of the village or villages and once the land is categorized as pasture land, it cannot be divested to use for any other purposes, unless and until on existence of special circumstances, its classification as pasture land is changed by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure laid down as aforesaid. Further, it is statutory obligation of the state authorities to ensure that the land set apart for pasturage is not divested to be used for any other purpose unauthorisedly. 195. In the matter of “Jetha Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” [D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.8816/11, decided on 16.5.12], a Bench of this court while dealing with the issue of mining operation in pasture land, emphasised the need of preservation and development of pasture land, as under: “Suffice it to say that the pasture land is meant for grazing of cattles of the village or villages and once the land is categorised as pasture land, it cannot be divested to use for any other purposes including the mining operation unless and until in the special circumstances, its classification as pasture land is changed by the competent authority in accordance with the procedure laid down under the relevant Statutes. Further, it is statutory obligation of the state authorities to ensure that the land set apart for pasturage is not divested to be used for any other purpose unauthorisedly. The livelihood of large number of villagers is dependent on the livestock and therefore, it is the bounden duty of the state authorities to preserve, develop and manage the pasture land in a manner which ensures therein the vegetation in abundance to feed the livestock. Needless to say that if illegal mining and other such activity in the pasture land is not viewed seriously and dealt with sternly by taking appropriate measures, pasture land will be fragmented and deteriorated and ultimately, will be destroyed, frustrating the very purpose of setting apart the land as pasturage.” (emphasis supplied) 196. In Jagpal Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue regarding common lands inhering in the village including the land used as grazing ground for cattle, observed: “2. Since time immemorial there have been common lands inhering in the village communities in India, variously called Gram Sabha land, Gram Panchayat land ( in may North Indian States), shamlat deh ( in Punjab, etc.), mandaveli and poramboke land (in South India), kalam, maidan, etc., depending on the nature of user. These public utility lands in the villages were for centuries used for the common benefit of the villagers of the village such as ponds for various purposes e.g. for their cattle to drink and bathe, for storing their harvested grain, as grazing ground for the cattle, threshing floor, maidan for playing by children, carnivals, circuses, ramlila, cart stands, water bodies, passages, cremation ground or graveyards, etc. These lands stood vested through local laws in the State, which handed over their management to Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases. ....xxxxx.......xxxx 4. They were generally treated as inalienable in order that their status as community land be preserved. There were no doubt some exceptions to this rule which permitted the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat to lease out some of this land to landless labourers and members of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes, but this was only to be done in exceptional cases. ....xxxxx.......xxxx 4. What we have witnesses since Independence, however, is that in large parts of the country this common village land has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power, money power or political clout, and in many States now there is not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally inconsistent with their original character, for personal aggrandisement at the cost of the village community. This was done with active connivance of the State authorities and local powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring example of this lamentable state of affairs. .....xxx......xxxxx..... 23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat /poramboke /shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments /Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show-cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” (emphasis supplied) 197. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some government notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” (emphasis supplied) 197. We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the mandate of the provisions of the Act of 1955 and the Rules made thereunder, the preservation and development of the pasture land by the State Authorities is the rule and diversion of user thereof is an exception and therefore, the power conferred upon the Collector under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955, to change the classification of the pasture land should be exercised sparingly only in the larger public interest and not so as to subserve the interest of any individual. 198. At this stage, it is to be noticed that in the Writ Petition No.5907/08, the petitioner has given the details of some of the orders passed by the JDA converting the land set apart as pasture land in the rural areas of Jaipur Region but there is no details available in respect of the rural areas falling within the Jodhpur Region, Ajmer Region and various districts of the State and therefore, before further dilation of the issue, it would be appropriate that the directions are issued to the State to furnish the complete details regarding the availability of the pasture land in various districts of the State of Rajasthan as on the date of commencement of the Act of 1955, the diversion of the user of the pasture land permitted after the commencement of the Act of 1955, and the land set apart as pasture land after the commencement of the Act of 1955. The State should also furnish the the district-wise details of unauthorised occupation over the pasture land. 199. But in any case, pending consideration of the issue, as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra), the indiscriminate diversion of the pasture land for other purposes needs to be checked and any unauthorised occupation over the pasture land by unscrupulous persons needs to be dealt with strictly. Conservation and preservation of the land forming part of nadi, pond, lakes, river bed and catchment area etc.? (Question No.15) 200. Conservation and preservation of the land forming part of nadi, pond, lakes, river bed and catchment area etc.? (Question No.15) 200. As laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board's case (supra), the natural resources like air, sea, water and forest have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The court laid down that the Doctrine of Public Trust enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoinment of the general public rather than to use for private ownership or commercial purposes. 201. The necessity of protecting the forest, lakes, rivers, wildlife has been further emphasised by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Intellectual Forum's case (supra). 202. As noticed hereinabove, the learned AG and AAG have fairly conceded before this court that the natural resources such as hills, notified area, forest, river, lake etc. cannot be disturbed while preparing the Master Development Plan or modifying the same. 203. It is pertinent to note that in 'Abdul Rahman v. State”, 2005 RRT 59, a Bench of this court has issued direction to the State Government to remove encroachment in the catchment area of the water bodies. That apart, in “Suo Motu vs. State of Rajasthan“ (S.B.C.Writ Petition No.11153/11), disposed of by Jaipur Bench of this court vide order dated 29.5.12, specific directions are issued restraining allotment of the land falling in catchment areas of water reservoirs like Johar, Nala, Tank, River, Pond etc. and it is further directed that the appropriate action shall be taken for cancellation of the allotment made in defiance of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. 204. But the fact remains that no effective steps have been taken so far for conservation and preservation of the natural resources i.e. hills, forest, river, lake, other water bodies and the encroachment thereon by unscrupulous persons continues unabated. We earnestly feel that the State Authorities should take a drive to remove all encroachments made over the natural resources noticed hereinabove and the unauthorised activities operating thereon, with utmost expedition. 205. We earnestly feel that the State Authorities should take a drive to remove all encroachments made over the natural resources noticed hereinabove and the unauthorised activities operating thereon, with utmost expedition. 205. In the result, having regard to the aforesaid conclusions arrived at, we issue the following directions: (i) The Development Authorities and the State Government shall ensure that Master Development Plan of a city or town prepared under the relevant statutes is a comprehensive and self explanatory document providing for preservation, conservation and development of eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area, peripheral control belt, natural scenery, city forest, wildlife, natural resources and landscaping as also allocation of land for different uses such as residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, cultural complexes, tourist complexes, open spaces, garden, recreation centres, amusement parks, zoological gardens, animal sanctuaries, dairies and health resorts etc. (ii) Simultaneously with the preparation of Master Development Plan or immediately thereafter as contemplated by Section 4 of the UIT Act and Section 22 of the Act No.25 of 1982 and other relevant statutes, the authority concerned shall proceed with the preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each zone clearly specifying the location and extent of the land uses proposed in the zone for such thing as public buildings and other public works and utilities, roads, housing, recreation, parks, industry, business, markets, schools, public and private open spaces etc. (iii) The sanctity of Master Development Plan or the Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned shall be maintained and all development schemes of the various zones and the development work to be undertaken by the local authorities or private entrepreneurs or anybody else during the operative period thereof, shall conform to the land uses as specified under the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be. (iv) Once the Master Development Plan is brought into being, vigilant implementation thereof shall be the rule and any deviation therefrom an exception and therefore, the power vested with the authority or the State Government for modification thereof during its operative period shall be exercised sparingly in larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to sub-serve interest of an individual. (v) The eco-sensitive zone/ecological zone/green area specified in the Master Development Plan once established shall not be altered or put to other uses during the operative period of the Plan and even while undertaking the revision of the Plan or preparation of the new Plan. (vi) Even the area which is shown in the various Master Development Plans as Green Zone/Green Area marked as G-2 abutting G-1 developed as buffer to promote a continuum to G-1 shall not be permitted to be used for the activities other than those specified, unless and until, the State Government after objective consideration arrives at a categorical conclusion that the public interest involved in diversion of the land for other use outweighs the object sought to be achieved in permitting its restrictive use specified. In any case, change of the land use of the Green Zone/Green Area (G2) shall be as an exception to serve the larger public interest, to achieve the basic object thereof i.e. planned development of the concerned region, city or town and not to subserve the interest of an individual. (vii) During the operative period of the Master Development Plan, the land use in the peripheral control belt for the purposes other than those specified shall not be generally permitted. But if the change of the land use in the peripheral control belt is considered inevitable in the larger public interest and not to serve the interest of an individual, the change of the land use for the activities other than those specified, should only be permitted to subserve the legislative intent of planned development for promotion and enhancement of the quality of life of the citizens and not otherwise. (viii) No isolated change in the land use of the land falling within the peripheral control belt shall be permitted without inclusion thereof in accordance with the procedure laid down, in the land use plan of urbanisable area shown in the Master Development Plan, the development wherein has to be further regulated by Zonal Development Plans notified. (ix) Further, the development activity within the peripheral control belt for the purposes aforesaid, shall not be permitted without assessment of environment impact and ensuring the fulfillment of requirement of the open spaces/green spaces for the existing population settled in the different zones of the city. (ix) Further, the development activity within the peripheral control belt for the purposes aforesaid, shall not be permitted without assessment of environment impact and ensuring the fulfillment of requirement of the open spaces/green spaces for the existing population settled in the different zones of the city. The authorities shall be under an obligation to provide for buffer zone to ensure the availability of minimum requirement of green space/open space per city dweller. (x) The State Government while permitting the change of the land use in the peripheral control belt or the Green Zone (G-2)/Green Area(G-2) shall maintain complete transparency, the applications made for the change of land use as also the orders passed thereon, shall be uploaded on the website of Department of Urban Development & Housing so also on the website of the concerned local authority. The order permitting the change of land use shall be an speaking order reflecting the fulfillment of the parameters laid down as aforesaid. (xi) The open spaces, green spaces, common facilities, playgrounds, gardens, parks, recreational areas specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan shall be protected during the operative period of the Plans and even thereafter, while undertaking revision thereof or preparing a new Plan and the same shall not be diverted to the use other than those specified. (xii) The local authorities and the State Government are directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, for restoration of the user of the open spaces, green spaces, common facilities, playgrounds, gardens, parks, recreational areas specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan or the Layout Plan of the colonies developed by the local authorities or the private colonisers in all the six major cities and other towns of the State, which stand diverted to other unauthorised use. (xiii) The different land uses as specified in the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be, form basic character of the Plan and the land use as specified shall not be permitted to be changed without alteration/modification of the Plan after following the procedure laid down under the relevant statute. The change of the land use to be permitted by way of modification of the Plans must be in furtherance of the planned development of the city or town in the larger public interest and not to sub-serve the interest of an individual. The change of the land use to be permitted by way of modification of the Plans must be in furtherance of the planned development of the city or town in the larger public interest and not to sub-serve the interest of an individual. (xiv) In the residential colonies developed as per the layout plan approved, where the plan does not provide for mixed user, no residential land in such colonies shall be permitted to be used for commercial or any other uses. (xv) The Development Authorities and the State Government shall take appropriate steps for specifying the locations in the Master Development Plan and the Zonal Development Plan for development of multistorey buildings. (xvi) In the existing residential colonies which are developed with the infrastructure facilities keeping in view the number of family units to be settled in the houses to be constructed in such colonies, no multistorey buildings shall be permitted to come up adversely affecting the rights of the residents settled therein. (xvii) The local authorities and the State shall frame the township policy ensuring that no small colony comes up in small area with no infrastructure facilities precipitating a situation wherein the residents are condemned to live a miserable life. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bondu Ramaswamy's case (supra), instead of permitting small colonies coming up in small areas, the local authorities and the State Government shall make sincere efforts to undertake the exercise for approval of integrated layout of residential and other schemes either by acquisition of the land or undertaking the exercise of land pooling. (xviii) The local authorities and the State Government shall ensure that the norms laid down for providing green belt on both the sides of the highways in the width of 100 ft. after the right to way is strictly followed. Further, the appropriate steps shall be taken for removal of the unauthorised construction raised, if any, in violation of the norms laid down. (xix) The local authorities and the State Government shall take immediate steps to check the encroachment and unauthorised constructions over the public ways and footpaths. The encroachment made on the footpath and public way by way of putting stairs, ramps, hoardings or fencing etc. in various cities and towns of the State shall be removed in accordance with law, expeditiously. (xix) The local authorities and the State Government shall take immediate steps to check the encroachment and unauthorised constructions over the public ways and footpaths. The encroachment made on the footpath and public way by way of putting stairs, ramps, hoardings or fencing etc. in various cities and towns of the State shall be removed in accordance with law, expeditiously. (xx) The local authorities shall enforce the building bylaws strictly and no construction shall be permitted in deviation of the approved plan. The construction of the building shall be regulated by the concerned officials of the local authorities at all stages and if any deviation is found, the immediate measures shall be taken to stop the construction and undo the deviation. (xxi) No deviation from the norms laid down under the building by-laws shall be permitted. The unauthorised construction raised violating the building line and the set backs norms laid down under the Building Bylaws or otherwise by the concerned local authority, shall not be permitted to be compounded in any circumstances. (xxii) The suggestions made by the AAG for strengthening the enforcement of Building By-laws in the municipal areas and to check the unauthorised constructions as reproduced in para no.42 of this order, shall be enforced by all the local authorities of the State. (xxiii) The norms prescribed for compulsory parking in the commercial buildings and other than commercial buildings constructed within the municipal area of the various cities shall be enforced strictly and the buildings shall not be permitted to commence its functioning unless the completion certificate is issued by the authority concerned after being satisfied about compliance of the provisions incorporated under the relevant statutes for compulsory parking. In the existing buildings where the parking spaces have not been provided as per the sanctioned plan or which have been converted to other use, shall be restored within the time frame to be notified by the local authority, failing which such buildings shall be sealed and appropriate penal action shall be taken against the defaulters in accordance with law. In the existing buildings where the parking spaces have not been provided as per the sanctioned plan or which have been converted to other use, shall be restored within the time frame to be notified by the local authority, failing which such buildings shall be sealed and appropriate penal action shall be taken against the defaulters in accordance with law. (xxiv) Unauthorised development or change of land use shall not be compounded in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33A of the Act No.25 of 1982, Section 34 of the Act No.2 of 2009 and Section 34 of the Act No.39 of 2013, as the case may be, unless and until such unauthorised development or change of land use sought to be compounded falls within the parameters of permissible modification of the plan as contemplated under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 25 of the Act No.25 of 1982 and other relevant statutes and such modification to the Plans is actually carried out by following the procedure laid down. (xxv) No change of land use in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 73B of UIT Act or regularisation of unauthorised change of land use in terms of subsection (3) of Section 73B of UIT Act, shall be permitted without modification of the Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan, as the case may be, in accordance with the procedure laid down. Further, no modification of the Plans for the said purpose shall be permitted by the State authorities unless such modification is expedient in the larger public interest to achieve the basic object of planned development. (xxvi) The Development Authorities and the State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the industrial area is located away from the residential area and shall provide for green areas between the industrial area and the residential area to buffer the residential areas. (xxvii) The State shall constitute a high power committee consisting of inter alia the experts of the field, to frame the Relocation Scheme with regard to shifting of hazardous industries/industrial areas located in close vicinity of the residential colonies, after conducting survey in all the major cities of the State. The report of the committee with the recommendations to take the appropriate measures for shifting of industries so as to save the citizens from ill-effects of industrial activities, shall be placed before this court. The report of the committee with the recommendations to take the appropriate measures for shifting of industries so as to save the citizens from ill-effects of industrial activities, shall be placed before this court. (xxviii) The State is directed to furnish complete details regarding availability of the pasture land in various districts of the State of Rajasthan as on the date of commencement of the Act of 1955; the diversion of the user of the pasture land permitted after commencement of the Act of 1955 and the land set apart as pasture land after commencement of the Act of 1955. The State shall also furnish the district wise details of unauthorised occupation over the pasture land. (xxix) Pending consideration of the issue with regard to the diversion of the pasture land for other uses by this court, the State Government is directed to take appropriate steps to check and remove unauthorised occupation over the pasture land by unscrupulous persons in various villages of the State forthwith. (xxx) The State Government is directed to produce the original record of the proceedings taken for permitting the change of the user of the land measuring 1222.93 hectares situated between Kho- Nagoria to Goner Road, covered by the Master Development Plan of Jaipur, 2011 from ecological zone to residential and mixed land use, by way of zonal layout plan of Sector 34 and Sector 35 for perusal of this court on the next date of hearing. No permission for raising construction on the aforesaid land shall be granted by the concerned local authority and the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained qua the open land in the aforesaid area till further orders. (xxxi) The State Authorities shall take effective steps for conservation and preservation of natural resources i.e. hills, forests, rivers, other water bodies and catchment area. Further, the State Authorities shall undertake a drive to remove all encroachments made over the natural resources noticed hereinabove and the unauthorised activities operating thereon and shall restore such natural resources by taking appropriate action including the cancellation of allotment made in defiance of provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1955. (xxxii) The respondents local authorities and the State Government shall comply with the directions issued as aforesaid within a period of four months. (xxxii) The respondents local authorities and the State Government shall comply with the directions issued as aforesaid within a period of four months. (xxxiii) The compliance report shall be filed by the respective local authorities and the State Government before the next date of hearing. (xxxiv) The Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan and the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan shall ensure the compliance of the directions issued by this court as aforesaid. (xxxv) The interim order dated 9.12.10 passed by this court shall stand modified in terms of the directions issued as aforesaid. 206. The applications preferred by various applicants for change of the land use of the land forming part of ecological zone/green belt/peripheral control belt shall be open to be considered by the State Government strictly in terms of directions issued as aforesaid. Consequently, all the applications preferred by the applicants before this court seeking permission for the change of land use shall stand disposed of. The matters shall be listed for perusal of the compliance report and further orders on 22.5.2017.