Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1789 (RAJ)

Aditya Vihar Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-27

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners challenging constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub division, Reconstitution and Improvements of Plots), Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1975’), especially its Rule 12 and Bye-law 8.10(5) of the Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Regional Building) Regulations, 2010 (Building Bye-laws) (for short, ‘the Regulations of 2010’) with further prayer that the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Zone-7, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Annexure-1) and the order dated 13.12.2014 issued by the Joint Secretary-III, Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan (Annexure-4) and the order dated 16.01.2015 (Annexure-5) and modified order dated 20.01.2015 (Annexure-6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner Zone-7, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, and the approval of plans dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure-8) granted by the respondent no.2, may be quashed and set aside, and the respondents no.3 to 8 may be restrained from making any construction on the land of their plots pursuant to above modified plan approved by the Jaipur development Authority on Plots No.41, 42, 43, 46 and 47 of Scheme No.8, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. 2. According to the petitioners, when construction activities were started on the aforementioned five plots and a deep basement was being dug, they made enquiry and submitted an application under the Right to Information Act to respondent no.2- JDA. On receiving papers, they discovered that respondents no.3 and 4 (Shri Mahesh Gupta and Smt. Nisha Gupta), respondent no.6 (Shri Chandra Gupta) had got their Plots No.41 (measuring 391 square yards), 42 (measuring 307.50 square yards) and 43 (measuring 312.84 square yards) reconstituted by order dated 03.01.2014 and thus the combined size of the said plots became 1011.39 square yards. Another application was then moved by the respondents no.3 to 8 to the Jaipur Development Authority to get the Plots No.41, 42, 43 reconstituted with Plots No.46 (measuring 440 square yards belonging to respondent no.8 Shri Ashish Modi) and 47 (measuring 440 square yards belonging to respondent no.7 Shri Anurag Modi). The matter was taken up by the B.P.C. of the Jaipur Development Authority as per the Agenda, which is placed on record as Annexure-3, is dated 24.06.2014. Since the said agenda note was approved by the BPC and the area of the reconstituted plot was more than 1500 square meter, the matter was referred to the State Government. The matter was taken up by the B.P.C. of the Jaipur Development Authority as per the Agenda, which is placed on record as Annexure-3, is dated 24.06.2014. Since the said agenda note was approved by the BPC and the area of the reconstituted plot was more than 1500 square meter, the matter was referred to the State Government. The Joint Secretary-III, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide its letter dated 13.12.2014 approved the reconstitution of the plots. Consequently, the Jaipur Development Authority issued the order dated 16.01.2015 reconstituting the Plots No.41, 42, 43, 46 and 47 as one plot. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued on 20.01.2015 amending the aforesaid order rectifying certain mistakes. The petitioner also received the plans for construction of aforesaid plots, which have been approved on 30.04.2015, along with letter dated 02.07.2015 from the respondents. According to the petitioners, the approved plan shows that permissible FAR is 3558.19 square meter, there is club area and permissible height is stilt+27 meters. The total parking for cars is 44 and for scooters is 80. The plans have been approved for lower basement, upper basement, stilt, first, second and third floors and terrace, for an achieved height of 12.55 meters. According to lay out, Plot No.42 is a corner plot having at 60’ wide road on its front and 30’ wide road on the side, and Plot No.43 is also having opening on 60’ wide road but Plot No.41 has its opening on 30’ wide road, whereas Plots No.46 and 47 have their opening on 40’ wide road. 3. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that since there are only two plots facing 60’ wide road, the three plots having opening on 30’ or 40’ wide roads. They have been reconstituted purposely to allow the height permissible on the plots having its opening on 60’ wide road, i.e. 1½ time of the width of the road, and also greater FAR to the builders. According to the Table-I of the building by-laws, if the Plots No.46 and 47 are joined the maximum permissible height would be 60 feet and in case Plots No.41, 42 and 43 are joined, the maximum height would be 90 feet and that on reconstitution of all the five plots the respondents may be allowed the maximum height stilt+27 meters. According to the Table-I of the building by-laws, if the Plots No.46 and 47 are joined the maximum permissible height would be 60 feet and in case Plots No.41, 42 and 43 are joined, the maximum height would be 90 feet and that on reconstitution of all the five plots the respondents may be allowed the maximum height stilt+27 meters. This has been done only with a view to circumvent the provisions of the Rules of 1975. If the constructions were raised on individual plots, no basement would be allowed but after reconstitution, the lower basement, upper basement as well as stilt have been allowed. The flats could not have been constructed on individual plots but now because these five plots have been reconstituted, the respondents have got the benefit of maximum construction on the plots and they would also have the commercial activities on part of the plots. This would unduly affect the civil amenities meant for Aditya Vihar Vikas Samiti. The petitioner no.1 Aditya Vihar Vikas Samiti and its members are therefore aggrieved by the fact that by reconstitution of the plots, the FAR would be increased with many other benefits and this would adversely affect the residential scheme. 4. Learned counsel argued that the provisions of reconstitution contained in Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 are unreasonable and invalid and have been left to the whims and fancy of the Authority. Learned counsel referring to sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, submitted that if the Authority, after approval of any project or scheme under subsection (4) of Section 39, at any time, considers it necessary to make certain modifications therein, which in its opinion do not effect material alteration in the character of the project and scheme, may make suitable modifications, but the Rules of 1975, especially proviso to Rule 12 stipulates that the Trust (read – JDA) may with the previous sanction of the State Government, grant permission for reconstitution or sub-division of plots bigger than 1500 square yards. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975 provides for obligation to seek permission from the Jaipur Development Authority for subdivision or reconstitution of the plots, whereas Rule 12 provides for subdivision or reconstitution of plots but only limitation that has been prescribed is that if the subdivision or reconstitution is sought of the plots bigger than 1500 square yards, the previous consent of the State Government is to be obtained but it nowhere provides as to which and how and in what manner the plots can be reconstituted. Second proviso to Rule 12(1) inter-alia stipulates that maximum coverage and height of such reconstituted plots shall be as per prevailing building byelaws. This provision is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and ultra-vires of the provisions of the JDA Act, especially sub-section (2) of Section 42. It is argued that Regulation 8.10(5) is also arbitrary and unconstitutional in so far as it provides for increase in FAR by charging betterment levy. 5. It is argued that once the Jaipur Development Authority approves the Scheme, then the buyers of the plots purchase the same on the understanding that the set back, height, FAR etc., in the Scheme would remain as it is which has been provided for the approved plots, when they purchased plots from their hard earned money for construction as per the building bye-laws. The FAR cannot be increased by payment of betterment levy. However, the builders with the connivance of officials of the Jaipur Development Authority, got the plots reconstituted and get their set back, heights, FAR etc., changed in the manner they liked with manipulation, which has resulted in material alteration of the Scheme. Unbridled powers have been conferred on the officers of the State and the Jaipur Development Authority with no guidelines or set parameters to decide as to what would amount to material alteration in the Scheme. This has resulted in arbitrary application of the Rules and the bye-laws. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 and Regulation 8.10(5) of the Regulations of 2010 are, therefore, liable to be declared ultra-vires of the JDA Act as also the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. This has resulted in arbitrary application of the Rules and the bye-laws. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 and Regulation 8.10(5) of the Regulations of 2010 are, therefore, liable to be declared ultra-vires of the JDA Act as also the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, further argued that by reconstitution of all five plots, the owners of all the five plots would now become the co-owner of each others’ plot and each one of them would be conveying title of their respective plots to one another, which could not be done without execution of the sale-deed/transfer deed on payment of the requisite stamp duty. The action of the respondents is, therefore, also violative of the provisions of the Registration Act and the Rajasthan Stamp Act. 7. It is contended that perusal of the approved plan would indicate the permission has been granted for the private respondents to construct two separate buildings, which itself shows that there is as such no reconstitution of the plots but Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 has been pressed into service only to extend undue benefit to the private respondents by the Jaipur Development Authority. It is contended that the orders passed by the State Government for reconstitution of five plots is not a reasoned order and it is non-speaking order and does not contain any reasons. It does not consider as to what adverse effect it will have on the other residents of the colony. Reconstitution has been done in mala-fide manner to give benefit to all five plot holders, which is available only on the plots having opening on 60’ wide road as three plot holders have opening of their plots on 30’ and 40’ wide roads. 8. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents-State and JDA, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate or reprobate. Residential schemes in which they have purchased plots and have raised construction itself has been approved under the Rules of 1975 and therefore they are estopped from challenging validity of the very same Rules at the later point of time. The petitioners have not raised any legal plea on the basis of which they seek to challenge the validity of the Rules of 1975 or for that matter Rule 12. The petitioners have not raised any legal plea on the basis of which they seek to challenge the validity of the Rules of 1975 or for that matter Rule 12. The Rules of 1975 have been challenged only to avoid the alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners before the JDA Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners have concealed the material facts with regard to the preparation of scheme, allotment of plots, the nature of land upon which the scheme has been developed, the process of approval and even the approved map of the scheme. The height and other parameters depend upon the building bye-laws applicable at the relevant point of time and these factors are not concerned with the scheme. It is contended that on application being submitted the decision with regard to reconstitution of the plots was made in Zonal Level meeting of 20.06.2014, the 218th meeting of BPC (LP) dated 07.08.2014 and thereafter the approval has been granted by the State Government on 23.12.2014. The decisions have been taken strictly as per the provisions of the law. Reconstitution of the plots has been permitted as per the provisions of the relevant law. The Rules of 1975 take care of every aspect of development and the provision of reconstitution is also legally and constitutionally valid. There is nothing arbitrary in the Rules, which have to be construed and interpreted holistically and not from a biased mind of a vested interest. It is submitted that the question of horizontal and vertical development of a city is a matter of policy and depends upon the requirement of a given time. The approval of scheme in a particular manner is not a permanent feature and its alteration from time to time as required and permissible under the law is just, proper and legal. The petitioners have submitted nothing on record to show that reconstitution in the instant case resulted in material alteration in the scheme itself. The action of the respondents in permitting reconstitution of the plots does not in any manner violate any right of the petitioners. 9. Mr. The petitioners have submitted nothing on record to show that reconstitution in the instant case resulted in material alteration in the scheme itself. The action of the respondents in permitting reconstitution of the plots does not in any manner violate any right of the petitioners. 9. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General, further submitted that Chapter VII of the Act of 1982, on which reliance has been placed by and on behalf of the petitioners, is wholly inapplicable to the cases like present one where the layout plan proposed by the Housing Cooperative Society was approved by the JDA under the Rules of 1975. The project and the scheme referred to in Chapter VII of the Act of 1982 are prepared by the JDA. Learned counsel in this connection referred to Sections 38 and 39 of the JDA Act and in particular referred to sub-section (3) of Section 39, which inter-alia provides that not later than two years from the date of publication of the declaration under subsection (2), the Authority shall prepare a project or scheme in draft form and publish it in such form and manner as may be determined by regulations together with a notice inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the said draft project or scheme before such date as may be specified therein, such date being not earlier than thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. The dispute in the present case pertains to a lay out plan submitted by the Housing Cooperative Society with regard to 15 bighas of land which has been approved under the Rules of 1975 and therefore the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1982 do not apply to such a situation. Moreover, complete datas have not been furnished as to in what manner reconstitution of the plots would disturb the availability of amenities to the dwellers of the colony with regard to drainage and roads etc. 10. Moreover, complete datas have not been furnished as to in what manner reconstitution of the plots would disturb the availability of amenities to the dwellers of the colony with regard to drainage and roads etc. 10. It is contended that proviso to Rule 12 to which exception has been taken by the petitioners merely stipulates that on grant of permission by the State Government for reconstitution or subdivision of the plots measuring more than 1500 yards, the set back of the reconstituted plots shall be as per the scheme of prevailing building bye-laws applicable on the size of the reconstituted plots and that the maximum coverage and height of such reconstituted plots shall be as per prevailing building byelaws. There is no departure from this provision as the building bye-laws have been framed as per the national parameters applicable in all the bigger cities. It is wrong to say that the order passed by the Government is a non-speaking order. In fact, the Government has passed well considered order subjecting it to three conditions in the order dated 13.12.2014. Even if in a given individual instance, a rule has been wrongly applied or misapplied, it cannot become a ground for striking down such rule as being unconstitutional. 11. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 to 8, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Rules of 1975 and the Regulations of 2010 and particularly Regulation 8.10(5) have been framed with appropriate legal competence and the same are not ultra vires to any provision of the JDA Act or the Constitution of India. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by reason of reconstitution of the plots. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the JDA, they could have approached the JDA Appellate Tribunal under Section 83 of the JDA Act. Alternative remedy was available to the petitioners, however, merely by camouflaging the relief, this writ petition has been filed before this Court. It is contended that the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the aforesaid provisions of the Rules of 1975 as the approval for construction of their own plots has been granted under the same set of Rules. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the JDA or the State Government and the same have been granted as per the Rules and Regulations. 12. It is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the JDA or the State Government and the same have been granted as per the Rules and Regulations. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners no.3 and 4 have not come with clean hands and they themselves have not followed the mandate of the Rules. Petitioner no.3 is the owner of plot nos.1 and 2 of Scheme No.8, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Single joint construction of the house has been made by petitioner no.3 over approximate 1013 square yards area. Constructions have been made on both the plots without getting the plots reconstituted. He has not left the set back as per the requirement of the bye-laws of the JDA as well as the Rules of 1975. Similarly, petitioner no.4 is the owner of plot nos.37 to 40 and huge building complex/flats/units have been constructed on the said plots over a total area of approximate 1955 square yards. He has neither got the plots reconstituted from the Government authorities nor adhered to the requirement of leaving set backs. Similarly, petitioner no.2 is the owner of plot nos.5 and 6. He too constructed a joint building on the aforesaid plots over an area measuring approximate 960 square yards without getting two plots reconstituted. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have selectively challenged the reconstitution of the plots by the private respondents only, whereas there are many instances in the same Scheme No.8 where several plot owners have combined their plots and raised construction, with or without permission. For instance, plot nos.50 to 52 have been constructed as residential apartment, namely, ‘Excellent Enclave’. Plot nos.48 and 49 have been constructed as residential apartment, namely, ‘Neelkanth Apartment’. Similarly plot nos.57 and 58 have been combined together to raise construction of apartment. And plot nos.16 and 17 have also been combined to raise construction of residential apartment, namely, ‘Raghukul-I & II’. Plot nos.14 and 15 have been jointly used for construction of residential apartment, namely, ‘Gyatri-I & II’. Similarly, plot nos.28 and 29 have been amalgamated to raise construction of residential apartment, namely, ‘Park Avenue’. 13. It is contended that the Rules of 1975 have stood scrutiny being in vogue for last more than forty years. Its validity cannot be lightly challenged as it does not in any manner violate any of the provisions of the JDA Act or the Constitution. 13. It is contended that the Rules of 1975 have stood scrutiny being in vogue for last more than forty years. Its validity cannot be lightly challenged as it does not in any manner violate any of the provisions of the JDA Act or the Constitution. It is denied that the respondents have in any manner violated the provisions of the Registration Act or the Rajasthan Stamp Act. After reconstitution of five plots, the private respondents entered into a development agreement, which was executed by them with a developer partnership firm, namely, M/s. Riyan Infra Projects. The development agreement dated 07.05.2014 has been duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar-VII, Jaipur and due stamp duty has been paid. It is contended that there is no material alteration inasmuch as no change in the basic character of the scheme, being residential, has been made. There is no alteration in the land earmarked for the facilities and amenities. Referring to approved map by B.P.C. (LP) (Annexure-R/3/2), learned counsel submitted that there is no change in the total area used for residential purpose vis-a-vis the lay out plan of the colony/society approved by the JDA. Learned counsel submitted that Rule 4(13) of the Rules of 1975 defines ‘reconstitution’ and if read along-with Rule 12, it cannot be said that there is no guideline contained in the Rules. Section 101 of the JDA Act is saving clause, which saves the provisions of the Rules of 1975 inasmuch as no part of it is a repugnant or contrary to the provisions of the JDA Act, 1982. 14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 15. During the course of arguments, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the allotment of the plots to the petitioners and approval granted to them for construction etc. has been made under the provisions of the Rules of 1975 and therefore the petitioners having taken advantage of the very same Rules cannot be permitted to challenge validity thereof. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 alone. has been made under the provisions of the Rules of 1975 and therefore the petitioners having taken advantage of the very same Rules cannot be permitted to challenge validity thereof. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his challenge to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 alone. Therefore we have to consider the validity of matter only in the limited scope whether or not Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975 and Regulation 8.10(5) of the Regulations, are ultra vires the provisions of the JDA Act and the Constitution of India. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much emphasis on sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act of 1982 to argue that if the Authority, after approval of any project or scheme under sub-section (4) of Section 39, at any time, considers it necessary for making certain modifications therein, which in its opinion do not effect material alteration in the character of the project and scheme, may make suitable modifications. Though the Act of 1982 does not define the ‘project’ and the ‘scheme’ but it has been elaborately dealt with in the provisions contained in Chapter VII itself. Section 38 of the Act of 1982 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act of 1982 or any other law for the time being in force, the Authority for the purpose of implementing the proposals in any plan, may make such projects and schemes for the integrated development of Jaipur region or any part thereof, as may be considered necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Act of 1982 details out the requirements of the project or the scheme and provides that the provisions for matters elaborated in Columns (i) to (viii) shall be made in a project or a scheme by the Authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 of the Act of 1982 details out the requirements of the project or the scheme and provides that the provisions for matters elaborated in Columns (i) to (viii) shall be made in a project or a scheme by the Authority. Sub-section (3) of Section 38 provides that the draft project or scheme shall contain the particulars, which includes all the matters specified in Sections 21 and 22 including (ii) acquisition, development, reservation and sale or leasing of land for purpose of public utilities such as roads, streets, open spaces, parks, gardens, re-creation and play grounds, hospitals, dispensaries, educational institutions, greenbelts, dairies, housing development, development of markets, shopping centres, commercial complexes, cultural centres, administrative centres, transport facilities and public purposes of all kinds, (iii) acquisition, laying out or relaying out of land, either vacant or already built upon, re-building or re-locating areas which have been badly laid out or which have developed or degenerated into a slum or kachhi basti, the filling up of reclamation of low laying, swampy or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land, (iv) acquisition and development of areas for commercial, industrial, transportation, agricultural mandies and other similar purposes, (v) acquisition of land and its development for the purpose of laying out or re-modelling of roads and streets pattern, layout of new streets or roads, construction, diversion, extension, alteration, improvement and closing up of streets and roads and discontinuance of communications, and (vi) re-construction of plots for the purpose of buildings, roads, drainage inclusive of sewerage, surface or sub soil drainage, sewerage disposal and other similar amenities, (vii) the construction, alteration and removal of buildings, bridges and other structures; (viii) lighting and water supply, and so on and so forth. 17. 17. Sub-section (3) of Section 38 of the Act of 1982 provides that the draft project or scheme shall contain the particulars, namely, (a) the area, ownership and tenure of each original plot; (b) the particulars of land allotted or reserved under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) with a general indication of the uses to which such land is to be put and the terms and conditions subject to which such land is to be put to such uses; (c) the extent to which it is proposed to alter the boundaries of original plots; (d) the estimate of the net cost of the scheme to be borne by the appropriate authority; (e) a full description of all the details of the scheme under sub-section (2) as may be applicable; (f) the laying out or relaying out of land either vacant or already built upon; (g) the filling up or reclamation of low laying, swampy or unhealthy areas or levelling up of land; and (h) any other particulars as may be determined by regulations. Section 39 of the Act of 1982 is for preparation of projects and schemes, which provides that the Authority may, by resolution, declare its intention to prepare a project or scheme as provided in section 38 in any development area. Section 40 provides for restrictions on use and development of land after declaration of a scheme. Section 41 envisages lapse of scheme, which provides that if the Authority fails to implement the project of scheme approved under sub-section (4) of Section 39 within a period of five years from the date of publication thereof under sub-section (5) of Section 39, it shall, on the expiration of the said period of five years, lapse. It is in this setting of the enactment that Section 42 figures thereafter, which refers to modification or withdrawal of project or scheme. Reliance placed by the petitioner on sub-section (2) of Section 42 to contend that provisions of the Rules of 1975 especially Rule 12 and its proviso are violative of sub-section (2) of Section 42, in our considered view, is wholly misconceived. Approval of the layout plan, with or without modification proposed by the Housing Cooperative Society under the Rules of 1975, cannot be elevated to the level of Project on the Scheme under the provisions of Chapter VII of the JDA Act. 18. Approval of the layout plan, with or without modification proposed by the Housing Cooperative Society under the Rules of 1975, cannot be elevated to the level of Project on the Scheme under the provisions of Chapter VII of the JDA Act. 18. Even though Rules of 1975 were promulgated under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, but they would be saved by virtue of Section 101 of the JDA Act. These Rules clearly defines the ‘developer’ in Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 1975, to mean a person, who desires or undertakes sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots. Rule 4(13) defines ‘reconstitution’, which means any change in the area of dimension of two or more plots. Rule 5 provides that if any person who intends to sub-divide or reconstitute or improve his plot being in the area of the Trust (read - the JDA) shall obtain prior permission in writing from the Trust (JDA) for the sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots in the prescribed manner. Rule 6 provides for procedure for permission. Rule 7 provides that every application for the subdivision, reconstitution or improvement of plots shall be accompanied by key map, survey map, layout plan etc. Rule 8 provides that every applicant who applies for permission of subdivisions, reconstitution or improvement of plots shall produce with the application and plan, a written statement explaining the scheme for subdivision or reconstitution or improvement of plots and such a statement shall include at least the location of the site and its relation with the surrounding area and physical features of the land, title of the land of the applicant in original and attested copies of such document, the present and future use of the land and description of the proposals of the plan. Rule 9 insists that all the plans and statements sent to the Trust (JDA) shall be duly signed and authenticated by the developer and the person who has prepared the plans and the statements, with regard to which a registered Architect/Civil Engineer/Town Planner as may be authorized by the Trust shall be eligible under these Rules. Rule 10 refers to density and Rule 11 speaks of saleable area. It is in this sequence that Rule 12 figures with heading ‘Sub-division or reconstitution of Plots’. Rule 10 refers to density and Rule 11 speaks of saleable area. It is in this sequence that Rule 12 figures with heading ‘Sub-division or reconstitution of Plots’. Rule 12 provides that no plot which is residential or intended to be used for residential purpose, shall be less than 35 square yards, or bigger than 1500 square yards in the schemes of sub-division, reconstitution or improvement of plots. The proviso to Rule 12 is applied where size of the plot, of which reconstitution or subdivision is sought, is bigger than 1500 square yards. The proviso stipulates that the Trust (JDA) may with previous sanction of the State Government, grant permission for reconstitution or subdivision, as the case may be, of plots bigger than 1500 square yards. The said reconstitution of the plots shall be as per the scheme of the prevailing building bye-laws applicable on the size of the reconstituted plots, which ever is greater and in case of subdivision of plots set back of original plot shall be maintained. It further provides that the maximum coverage and height of such reconstituted plots shall be as per prevailing building bye-laws. 19. Section 2(5) of the JDA Act defines ‘development’ vis-a-vis plots, which also includes reconstitution of the plots. It cannot therefore be said that the Rule 12 or for that matter the proviso to Rule confers unbridled power either on the JDA or the State Government for permitting reconstitution or subdivision of the plots. With the reconstitution of the plots, there is no change in the dominating character of the layout plan of the colony being residential. It has also not been shown whether permitting reconstitution of the plots in any manner reduces the land earmarked for facilities/amenities. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate whether there was any reduction in total area used for residential purpose or layout plan of the colony approved by the JDA. It has also not been shown whether permitting reconstitution of the plots in any manner reduces the land earmarked for facilities/amenities. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate whether there was any reduction in total area used for residential purpose or layout plan of the colony approved by the JDA. It is not in dispute, which is also evident from the approved map enclosed with the petition, that the main entrance of the reconstituted plot is on 60’ wide road and the Government in its order dated 13.12.2014 imposed the condition that the main entrance and exit of the reconstituted plots shall always be on 60’ wide road and the parking shall be provided as per the applicable bye-laws and that the front set-back shall be 12 meters facing 60’ wide road and the side set back would be 6 meters and that the other parameters applicable as per the Regulations of 2010, shall be strictly adhered to. In fact the respondents no.3 to 8 in the reply have raised objection with regard to plot nos.1 and 2 of petitioner no.3 being combined together for raising single building without reconstitution, and plot nos.47 to 50 of petitioner no.4 also being used together for raising huge building/complexes/flats without there being any justification and similarly plot nos.5 and 6 of the petitioner no.2 also for raising construction of a joint building without getting two plots reconstituted as also without adherence to the relevant provisions. Respondents have also given six other instances of similar nature in the same colony. Though the petitioners in their rejoinder to the reply have controverted these facts, therefore, they become disputed questions of facts. Nonetheless, the the petitioners have made flat denial in their rejoinder of allegation of respondents no.3 to 8 against them with regard to their plots and certain other plot holders being combined to raise construction of common buildings, but have not produced any order of reconstitution of any of these plots. All these being disputed questions of facts, may be a matter of enquiry and for the purpose of deciding validity of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975, this need not be gone into by this Court. All these being disputed questions of facts, may be a matter of enquiry and for the purpose of deciding validity of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975, this need not be gone into by this Court. But this much is clear that in so far as the respondents no.3 to 8 are concerned, they have duly applied to the competent authorities to seek permission for reconstitution, may be in two stages and eventually permission for reconstitution of the plots was granted by the State Government. 20. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate by placing any material on record or otherwise as to how the impugned provisions violate any of the process of the JDA Act or the Constitution of India. In the considered opinion of this Court, neither Rule 12 of the Rules of 1975, which is a time tested Rule and has been in vogue for last 40 years, nor Regulation 8.10(5) of the Regulations, which also envisages prior permission of the State Government, if the size of the reconstituted plots is bigger than 1500 square yards, can be said to be violative or ultra vires any of the provisions of the Act of 1982 including Section 42(2) or the Constitution of India. 21. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan – (2004) 10 SCC 1 , observed that the question whether a particular delegated legislation is in excess of the power of the supporting legislation conferred on the delegate, has to be determined with regard not only to specific provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to make rules or regulations, but also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act; nor is it open to the court to sit in judgment over the wisdom, the effectiveness or otherwise of the policy, so as to declare a regulation ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the court, the impugned provision will not help to carry through the object and purposes of the Act. 22. The Supreme Court in Cellular Operators Association of India and Others Vs. 22. The Supreme Court in Cellular Operators Association of India and Others Vs. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and Others – (2016) 7 SCC 703 , while dealing with challenge to a subordinate legislation on the ground of arbitrariness, held that such legislation must be so arbitrary that it could not be said to be in conformity with primary statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. 23. The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy – (2006) 4 SCC 517 , after adverting to the relevant case law on the subject, laid down the parameters of judicial review of subordinate legislation generally thus:- “15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules). 16. The court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention is that the inconsistency or nonconformity of the rule is not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.” 24. The petitioners in the present case have failed to bring their case in any one of the aforementioned six parameters. 25. The petitioners in the present case have failed to bring their case in any one of the aforementioned six parameters. 25. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.