JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. In the instant writ petitions, vide order dated 12.1.17, a Division Bench of this court consisting of two of us (Justice Sangeet Lodha and Justice Arun Bhansali) while deciding the issues arising for consideration, issued various directions to the respondents. However, a few issues remained pending adjudication for want of further details and accordingly, the respondents were directed to furnish the requisite details. The matters were directed to be listed for perusal of the compliance report and further orders. 2. There after, the matters were listed before the Division Bench on 29.5.17. After due consideration of the compliance reports submitted by the State Government and various Development Authorities as also the material placed on record by the petitioners and learned Amicus Curiae, further directions were issued from time to time. 3. On mention being made by Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General, these matters were listed before the Division Bench on 20.3.18 in ‘To be mentioned’ category. Learned AAG brought to the notice of the Court that vide order dated 15.3.18 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLPs (Nos. 19219- 19223/2017) preferred by the State of Rajasthan and others, aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.17, while disposing of the SLPs, the Chief Justice of this court has been requested to constitute an appropriate Bench preferably of three Judges so that these matters can be finally heard and decided within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Registry to place the matters before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. 4. The matters were listed before the Larger Bench constituted by the Chief Justice on 5.4.18. Learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that hearing before the Larger Bench would be in furtherance of Division Bench's decision dated 12.1.17 and orders passed thereafter in the writ petitions. The hearing in the matters commenced on 9.4.18. However, at the request made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the matters were adjourned from time to time for further arguments. 5. At the outset, Mr. The hearing in the matters commenced on 9.4.18. However, at the request made by the counsel appearing for the parties, the matters were adjourned from time to time for further arguments. 5. At the outset, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submitted that the State Government and its authorities are not against any of the directions issued by Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.1.17, which are in conformity with the existing policies and the laws in force in the State. Learned ASG contended that as a matter of fact, the State is facing difficulties in implementation of certain directions issued by the Division Bench of this court, which need to be reconsidered and suitably modified. In this regard, our attention was drawn to direction Nos. (ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (xvi) (xx) and (xxi) contained in order dated 12.1.17, which may be reproduced for ready reference: “(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. ….xx.xxxxx……… (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. ….xx.xxxxx……… (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 sub-serve 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 sub-serve the legislative intent of planned development for promotion and enhancement of the quality of life of the citizens and not otherwise. …….xx.xxxxx…….. (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. …xx.xxxxx…. (xx) The local authorities shall enforce the building by-laws 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. 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. (xvi) No deviation from the norms laid down under the building bylaws shall be permitted. The unauthorised construction raised violating the building line and the set backs norms laid down under the Building By-laws or otherwise by the concerned local authority, shall not be permitted to be compounded in any circumstances.” 6. Learned ASG submitted that undoubtedly, Section 22 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (Act No. 25 of 1982) and other relevant statutes mandate preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each zone clearly specifying the location and extent of the land uses in the zone for such thing as public buildings and other development works but it is not the mandate of the statute that pending preparation of Zonal Development Plans/Layout Plans, the Development Authorities are precluded from implementing the projects and schemes for integrated development of the region as contemplated under the Master Development Plan. Drawing the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 38 of the Act No. 25 of 1982, learned ASG contended that notwithstanding the fact that the Zonal Development Plans are not prepared as mandated by Section 22, it is open for the Development Authority for the implementation of the proposal in any plan, to make such projects and schemes for the integrated development of the region or any part thereof as may be considered necessary. It is submitted that if for any reason, the Zonal Development Plans and Layout Plans are not prepared, the development work which is a continuous process cannot be put to a grinding halt and there fore, the directions No. II and III contained in order dated 12.1.17 passed by Division Bench of this court deserve to be suitably modified and pending preparation of the Zonal Development Plans/Layout Plans, the Development Authorities must be permitted to implement the projects and schemes prepared keeping in view the land use as prescribed under the Master Development Plan. 7. 7. It is next contended by the learned ASG that in the cities other than Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, where there is no specific Development Authority Acts governing the development, the Master Plans are prepared under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (UIT Act), wherein there is no concept of preparation of the Zonal Development Plan and the entire development work in those cities shall be governed by their respective Master Plan, which is a self contained document, prepared keeping in view the mandate of provisions of Section 4 of the UIT Act, which defines various zones into which urban area for which plan has been prepared may be divided for the purpose of its improvement and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used. The Master Plan prepared as mandated by Section 4 serves as basic pattern of framework within which the improvement schemes of various zones may be prepared and therefore, the directions No. (ii) and (iii) issued by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.1.17 directing to prepare the Zonal Development Plans in respect of the cities not governed by Development Authorities Acts need to be suitably modified so that the pace of development work in those cities is not hampered for want of Zonal Development Plans. 8. Learned ASG submitted that by direction No. (v), the Division Bench had directed that 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 new Plan but, at the same time, vide direction No. (vi), the State Government is permitted to use the land falling in Green Zone/Green Area for the activities other than those specified, where after objective consideration it arrives at the conclusion that the public interest involved in diversion of the land for other use outweigh the object sought to be achieved in permitting its restrictive use specified and thus, it needs to be clarified that the direction No. (v) shall be read in context of direction No. (vi) and there is no absolute bar on use of the land falling within Eco-sensitive Zone/Ecological Zone/Green Area in the Master Development Plan for the purposes other than those specified. Learned ASG submitted that the land use in the Green Zone/Green Area/Peripheral Control Belt cannot be seized for all times to come. 9. Lastly, learned ASG contended that the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’) contemplates compounding of the construction raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan or building bye-laws, which is regulated by Rajasthan Municipalities (Compounding and Compromising of the Offences) Rules, 1966 (‘the Rules of 1966’) and thus, compounding of unauthorised construction to the extent permissible under the Rules of 1966 must be permitted. It is submitted that large number of unauthorised constructions already raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan or the building bye-laws, if not permitted to be compounded to the extent permissible, it would be practically impossible for the Local Authorities to demolish such unauthorised constructions and there fore, the directions issued by this court in this regard as contained in directions Nos. (xx) and (xxi) also deserve to be appropriately modified. 10. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned AAG submitted that for Jaipur new Master Development Plan-2025 was notified on 5.9.11, wherein some area falling under ecological zone in Master Development Plan-2011, has been included for other urban activities like residential, institutional, industrial etc. It is submitted that vide order dated 9.12.10 passed by this Court, the authorities were directed not to effect any change without permission of the Court in the ecological zone but the Development Authorities were not restrained from preparing new Master Development Plan on the expiry of operative period of the existing Master Development Plan. It is further submitted that new Master Development Plan-2025, for Jaipur has been prepared by the authority after conducting various surveys, study of growth directions and requirement of urban land in close proximity and in continuity of the existing urban development with due consultation with the town planning experts and thus, inclusion of some area of ecological zone for urban expansion, as the area was already prone to such activities, cannot be said to be in defiance of the directions issued by this Court. Learned AAG submitted that the Jaipur Development Authority deserves to be permitted to undertake the development works in Jaipur region in conformity with Master Development Plan-2025, duly sanctioned. 11. Mr. Learned AAG submitted that the Jaipur Development Authority deserves to be permitted to undertake the development works in Jaipur region in conformity with Master Development Plan-2025, duly sanctioned. 11. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned counsel appearing for Jaipur Development Authority while adopting the arguments advanced by learned ASG and AAG appearing for the State of Rajasthan, further contended that under Section 90A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”), the prescribed officer or authority is empowered to grant permission to use agriculture land situated in an urban area for any purpose other than that of agriculture, where desired non agriculture purpose is permissible in accordance with the law applicable in that area and is in consonance with the Master Plan or any other development plan or scheme by whatever name called in force, if any, in that area. That apart, 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, permits regularisation of unauthorised development. Similarly, Section 73B of UIT Act and Section 182 of the Act of 2009, empower the State Government or any Authority authorised by it to permit change of land use or regularise the use of the land and thus, the directions issued by this Court restraining the State Government, the Development Authorities and other Local Authorities from permitting the change of land use or regularising the change of the land use need to be reviewed and modified appropriately. 12. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate submitted that in exercise of the power conferred under Section 338 of the Act of 2009, Section 75 of Act No. 25 of 1982, Section 96 of Jodhpur Development Authority Act, 2009 (Act No. 2 of 2009) and Section 92 of Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 (Act No. 39 of 2013), the State Government has framed Integrated Building Regulations, 2017 (‘Regulations, 2017’), for regulating inter alia the construction of multi-storey buildings and therefore, the directions issued by this Court restraining the respondents from permitting construction of multi-storey buildings in the existing residential colonies need to be appropriately modified/clarified so as to permit the construction of the multi-storey buildings in the existing colonies in conformity with the Regulations, 2017. 13. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Amicus Curiae, has filed written submissions in response to the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. 13. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Amicus Curiae, has filed written submissions in response to the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents. Regarding the Zonal Development Plan for cities other than Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer, it is submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that as per provisions of Section 4 of UIT Act, the Master Plan itself is required to define various zones. Further, a perusal of Sections 29 to 32 of the Act of 1959, reveal that the same are almost pari materia to Section 22 of the Act No. 25 of 1982 and thus, the contention raised that no zonal plan is required to be prepared for urban area of the cities other than Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer is incorrect. It is submitted that very fact that the zones are required to be defined in the Master Plan presupposes that zonal plan/scheme has to be prepared for the purpose of implementing the Master Plan. In absence of the Zonal Development Plan, there will be haphazard development, which is not the situation contemplated by the legislature and is otherwise against the public interest. 14. In response to the contention of the learned ASG regarding the power of the Development Authority to make projects and schemes for integrated development of the region notwithstanding that the Zonal Development Plans and Layout Plans are not prepared, it is submitted that Section 38 of the Act No. 25 of 1982 begins with the expression “Subject to the provisions of this Act or any other law for time being in force” and therefore, the provisions of Section 38 can be resorted to only after complying with the provisions of Section 22 of the Act No. 25 of 1982. Moreover, clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 38 clearly indicates that the project or the scheme has to make provision in respect of the matters specified in Sections 21 and 22 of the Act No. 25 of 1982 and thus, preparation of Zonal Plan is sine qua non even for preparation of the scheme. 15. Regarding compounding of unauthorised construction, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the judgment dated 12.1.17 has elaborately discussed the powers of the Local Authority which only pertains to compounding of the offences. 15. Regarding compounding of unauthorised construction, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the judgment dated 12.1.17 has elaborately discussed the powers of the Local Authority which only pertains to compounding of the offences. Deviations in the approved plan or raising unauthorized construction in addition to attracting civil consequences, is offence under Section 194 of the Act of 2009 and Section 299 of the Act of 2009 only permits compounding of the offence committed which does not mean that it is power to regularise illegal construction. It is submitted that the grant of permission to the State to regularise unauthorized construction will only encourage illegalities and wrong doers will be awarded with the premium of making violation of law. Relying upon the various decisions, it is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that illegal constructions cannot be allowed to be regularised. It is submitted that power of regularising the construction is firstly not contemplated under the respective Acts and secondly, it is against the public interest. 16. Replying to the submissions regarding modification of direction No. (v) and (vi), learned Amicus Curiae submitted that while passing the judgment dated 12.1.17, the Division Bench has considered all the aspects and have recorded a categorical finding that the land earmarked for Green Belt, Ecological Zone and Ecosensitive Zone cannot be used for any other purpose even by changing the land use in the existing Master Plan or at the time of revision of the Master Plan. It is submitted that a perusal of the chart produced by the State showing position of the green spaces in the Master Plans of the Jaipur Region from 1971 to 2025 will show that green area has been shifted outside the city, thereby leaving no lung spaces for existing population and thus, the change of the land use in the Green Belts, Ecological Zone and Eco- sensitive Zone can not be permitted which is bound to adversely affect the existing population in terms of availability of fresh air and oxygen level. 17. 17. Replying to the contention of the State that since Master Development Plan 2025 is operational in Jaipur, the Green Belt, Ecological Zone and Eco-sensitive Zone existing in the Master Development Plan-2011 for Jaipur Region if changed, cannot be restored, it is submitted that when preparation of Master Development Plan-2025 was underway, interim order dated 9.12.10 passed by this court was operative and for this reason, it is specifically provided in Master Development Plan-2025 (Volume II) of Jaipur Region that if there is any decision against the proposals as contained in Master Development Plan-2025, the provisions in the Master Plan shall be operative in accordance with the decisions. Moreover, vide judgment dated 12.1.17 interim order dated 9.12.10 granted by this court has not been vacated rather, it has been modified to the extent indicated therein. According to the learned Amicus Curiae the order dated 9.12.10 has been made absolute and the State is under obligation to restore the Green Belts, Ecological Zone and Eco-sensitive Zone reserved in Master Development Plan-2011, the use whereof has been changed in Master Development Plan-2025. It is submitted that if the change of the land use in such areas is permitted, the right of existing population of a decent life and ambient quality of air granted vide Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be seriously jeopardized. Once the Green Belts, Ecological Zones and Eco-sensitives Zones are provided, it vests in the public and local bodies only act as trustees to maintain it and they have no right to dispose of the same either by conversion of existing user or at the time of revision of the Master Plan. 18. Regarding power of regularisation, it is submitted that it not only encourages the encroachers over the public land but it has the effect of taking away the valuable land at throw away prices. While giving an illustration of the land at Prithviraj Nagar, Jaipur, it is submitted that out of 11000 bighas land, 6600 bighas is determined to be available for disposal which if permitted to be regularised at the rates prevalent, it will cause loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 13,000 crores approximately. While giving an illustration of the land at Prithviraj Nagar, Jaipur, it is submitted that out of 11000 bighas land, 6600 bighas is determined to be available for disposal which if permitted to be regularised at the rates prevalent, it will cause loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs. 13,000 crores approximately. It is submitted that if this court at all permits the State to undertake regularisation, the State should be directed to effect regularisation on the rate not less than four times of the DLC rate and these DLC rates should be one which is the highest in last five years. A further condition should be imposed that land/construction so regularised shall not be transferred and any transfer effected by the person concerned will be void abinitio and the land along with the construction will revert to JDA. 19. We have considered the submissions made by learned ASG, AAG, other counsels appearing for the parties and learned Amicus Curiae. 20. Indubitably, the urban development planning under the various Development Authority Acts envisage three level hierarchy viz. Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plans and Plans for Specific Projects and Schemes. 21. The Master Development Plan prepared as per the mandate of Section 21 of the Act of 1982, finally sanctioned, serves as a long term perspective plan for guiding integrated and sustainable 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. 22. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act of 1982 mandates that 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 basic pattern for framework within which zonal development of various zones may be prepared. 23. As per provisions of Section 22, Zonal Development Plan for each zone as specified under the Master Development Plan is required to be prepared simultaneously with the preparation of Master Development Plan or as soon as may be thereafter. 23. As per provisions of Section 22, Zonal Development Plan for each zone as specified under the Master Development Plan is required to be prepared simultaneously with the preparation of 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 development of the zone and show the approximate location and extent of the land use 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 alignment of the building on any site; the allotment or reservation of land for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes; the development of any area into township or colony and the restrictions and conditions subject to which such development can be undertaken or carried out; 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 and any other matter which is necessary for proper development of the zone or any area thereof according to the plan and for preventing buildings being erected haphazardly in such zone or area. Thus, the Zonal Development Plan is a detailed plan for the zone, conceived and prepared within the framework of Master Development Plan, containing proposals for various land uses, roads and streets, park and open spaces, community facilities, services and public utilities etc. 24. Thus, the Zonal Development Plan is a detailed plan for the zone, conceived and prepared within the framework of Master Development Plan, containing proposals for various land uses, roads and streets, park and open spaces, community facilities, services and public utilities etc. 24. Coming to making of projects and schemes under Chapter VIII of the Act of 1982, as per sub-section (1) of Section 38, the authority is empowered to make such projects and schemes for integrated development of Jaipur Region or any part thereof, as may be considered necessary for the purpose of implementing the proposals in the plan which as defined under Section 2(15) includes Master Development Plan or Zonal Development Plan prepared or deemed to be prepared under the Act of 1982 and thus, the projects and schemes to be prepared, subject to other provisions of the Act and any other law, must conform to the land uses as specified under the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan. That apart, the schemes or projects made by the Development Authority must conform to the norms laid down under Section 21 & 22 of the Act. Thus apparently, the preparation of the projects and schemes for integrated development of the Jaipur Region contemplated under Section 38 is the stage of planning subsequent to the preparation of the Zonal Development Plan. To put in other words, the preparation of the projects or schemes to be implemented within the zone presupposes existence of Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan and as a matter of fact, it is the third stage in the hierarchy of planning for integrated development of the city. Thus, interpretation of the provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 1982 as suggested by the learned ASG that in terms thereof, it is permissible for the Development Authority to make projects and schemes for integrated development of the Jaipur Region or any part thereof and implement the same, notwithstanding that the Zonal Development Plan for development within the zone specified is not prepared, can not be countenanced by this court. 25. 25. Coming to the issue of requirement of Zonal Development Plan for the cities other than Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer where there is no specific Development Authority Acts governing the development are in force, admittedly, the Master Plans for such cities were prepared under the provisions of UIT Act, enacted to make provisions for the improvement and expansion of urban areas in the State of Rajasthan. Essentially, the UIT Act regulates the development and improvement of those urban areas of the State in respect whereof the Trust is established and incorporated under the provisions of Section 8 of the UIT Act. However, Section 3 of UIT Act, makes provision for conducting civil survey and preparation of the Master Plan in respect of any urban area in the State specified by the State by issuing order under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the UIT Act and thus, undoubtedly, the preparation of the Master Plan in respect of the urban areas in respect whereof no Urban Improvement Trust is constituted is also regulated by the provisions of the UIT Act. 26. As per mandate of Section 4 of UIT Act, the Master Plan to be prepared shall define various zones into which 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. Thus, even in respect of the urban areas, which are not governed by specific Development Authority Acts, the division of the urban area in the zones and the land uses in each zone is required to be specified in the Master Plan. In other words, the Master Plan to be prepared in terms of Section 4 of UIT Act, is required to be a self contained document clearly delineating the land uses in each zone which shall serve as basic pattern of frame work within which improvement scheme of various zones may be prepared. Obviously, where the Master Plan prepared for any urban area does not specify the land uses in each zone as contemplated under Section 4 of the UIT Act, the preparation of the Zonal Development Plan/Layout Plan indicating the various land. uses within the zone would be necessary, before proceeding with the preparation of the improvement scheme and implementation thereof. 27. There is yet another aspect of the matter. uses within the zone would be necessary, before proceeding with the preparation of the improvement scheme and implementation thereof. 27. There is yet another aspect of the matter. After coming into force of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short ‘the Act of 2009’), the preparation of the Master Plan and implementation thereof for the urban areas in respect whereof no Trust is constituted is no more governed by the provisions of UIT Act. As noticed by the Division Bench in order dated 12.1.17, the Act of 2009 incorporates specific chapter i.e. Chapter XI, which deals with urban development and town planning within the municipal area. Now the authority to carry out detailed survey of the city and preparation of a Master Development Plan and other statutory plans for the municipal areas is governed by the provisions of the Act of 2009. 28. Further, by virtue of provisions of Section 164 of the Act of 2009, any Master Development Plan prepared under provisions of any other law for time being in force, prior to commencement of the Act of 2009, shall be deemed to have been prepared under the Act of 2009 and the provisions incorporated in the Act of 2009 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 of 2009. In this view of the matter, except in 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, wherein the development planning is governed by specific Development Authority Act, the urban development and town planning shall be governed by the provisions of Act of 2009. 29. 29. It is pertinent to note that as per sub-section (4) of Section 159 of the Act of 2009, the Master Development Plan to be prepared may also define the various zones, whenever required, into which the municipality may be divided for the purposes of development and indicate the manner in which development works are to be carried out and indicate the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used (whether by carrying out therein development works or otherwise) and the stages by which such development work shall be carried out and shall serve as basic pattern of frame work within which the Zonal Development Plans of the various zones may be prepared. Thus, it is difficult to accept the contention that where the urban areas regulated by the Master Development Plan is divided in various zones, the development work may be carried out and the schemes and projects could be prepared and implemented, without first preparing the Zonal Development Plan delineating the various land uses in each zone thereof. 30. Even otherwise, in cases where in the Master Development Plan of the urban areas, the land uses for various development work to be carried out in each zone is not specified, any action by the local authority permitting the implementation of the schemes/projects within the zone may frustrate the very basic purpose of the preparation of the Master Development Plan i.e. the planned development of the urban area. 31. In this view of the matter, we are firmly of the opinion that the preparation and implementation of the schemes/projects in various zones of the urban areas must be preceded by the preparation and publication of Zonal Development Plan finally sanctioned. 32. This takes us to consider the contention of learned ASG that there could not be an absolute bar on use of the land falling within Eco-sensitive Zone/Ecological Zone/Green Area in a Master Development Plan for the purposes other than those specified. 33. The fundamental object of providing Ecological Zone or Green Belt is dealt with by the Division Bench of this court in order dated 12.1.17 as under: “103. 33. The fundamental object of providing Ecological Zone or Green Belt is dealt with by the Division Bench of this court in order dated 12.1.17 as under: “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. ……xx.xxxxx………… 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. ………xx.xxxxx……….xxx…….. 117. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which requires consideration of this court. ………xx.xxxxx……….xxx…….. 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 country sides 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. 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. 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. 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. 19. 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. 19. 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.” 34. A bare perusal of the finding recorded as aforesaid, makes it abundantly clear that the Division Bench while considering the contention of the State and Local Authorities that there cannot be an absolute bar on use of the land falling within Eco-Sensitive Zone/Ecological Zone/Green Area in the Master Development Plan, categorically held that such area earmarked forms basic feature of Master Development Plan, which once established, is not permissible to be altered even while undertaking revision of the Plan or preparation of new Plan. It is relevant to mention here that in the Jaipur Master Development Plan-2025 and Ajmer Master Development Plan, Ecological Zone/Green Zone (G-1) is shown as zone where the principal aim is to conserve the natural features such as hills, river, nala, water bodies, forests, flora and fauna at any cost. To put in other words, the said zone is strictly reserved and protected area, whereas, the Ecological Zone/Green Zone (G-2) is intended to be developed in continuum to G-1 wherein the activity like eco friendly housing, bio-tech parks, Motel, Resorts has been permitted and further “Pulses villages” Oil Pam, Vegetable Clusters, Mega Food Parks may also be proposed therein. Thus, keeping in view the bifurcation of Ecological Zone in the Master Development Plan of Jaipur and Ajmer in G-l and G-2, directions in respect of Ecological Zone/Green Zone (G-2) have been issued as contained in direction No.(vi) of the order dated 12.1.17. Suffice it to say that the directions contained in direction No. (v) & (vi) in context of the findings recorded by the Division Bench noticed above are self explanatory and do not warrant any clarification/modification as prayed for. 35. Suffice it to say that the directions contained in direction No. (v) & (vi) in context of the findings recorded by the Division Bench noticed above are self explanatory and do not warrant any clarification/modification as prayed for. 35. Learned AAG has pressed for clarification of the directions issued by the Division Bench vide order dated 12.1.17 so as to permit the Jaipur Development Authority to undertake development works in Jaipur Region in conformity with the Master Development Plan 2025, duly sanctioned, which includes some area falling under Ecological Zone in Master Development Plan 2011, for other urban activities like residential, institutional, industrial etc. 36. Indisputably, vide interim order dated 9.12.10 passed by Division Bench of this court, the Development Authorities were directed not to effect any change in Ecological Zone and Peripheral Belt Area including Green Belt without prior permission of the court. It was further directed that in case any change is found to be illegal, the responsibility shall be fixed on the individual officer. Obviously, keeping in view, the directions of this court, while undertaking revision of the Master Development Plan/Preparation of New Master Development Plan, the concerned authorities were required to abide by the interim directions issued by this court as aforesaid and for this reason, while finally sanctioning the Master Development Plan-2025 of Jaipur Region, it has been specifically provided that as against the proposal contained in Master Development Plan-2025, if there is any decision of any court, the provisions as contained in the Master Plan shall be operative subject to such decisions, (vide Master Development Plan-2025 Jaipur Region Vol. 2 page no. 179). 37. It can not be disputed that even while undertaking preparation of the Master Development Plan-2025, the Ecological Zone/Green Area specified in the Master Development Plan-2011, was required to be protected keeping in view the interim order passed by this court as aforesaid, as also for the reason that as per Master Development Plan-2011, the Green Zone delineated was to be protected against indiscriminate urbanisation and was intended to be continued as predominant Green Area even beyond the horizon year stipulated in the said document. In this view of the matter, the Green Zone delineated in Master Development Plan-2011 of Jaipur Region has to be protected and any proposal in the Master Development Plan-2025 which runs contrary to the directions issued by this court, cannot be made operative. In this view of the matter, the Green Zone delineated in Master Development Plan-2011 of Jaipur Region has to be protected and any proposal in the Master Development Plan-2025 which runs contrary to the directions issued by this court, cannot be made operative. The diversion of the land use delineated in Master Development Plan- 2011 for Ecological Zone/Green Area proposed to be diverted for other use under Master Development Plan-2025, must be restored as Ecological Zone/Green Area and no activities other than those which are permitted in the Ecological Zone/Green Area, are open to be permitted by the Development Authorities/State Authorities. 38. The existing Ecological Zone/Green Area in the Master Development Plan needs to be protected even at the time of revision of the Master Plan after the horizon year for the simple reason that the Ecological Zone/Green Area provided under the Master Plan cannot go on shifting with each revision of the plan so as to adversely affect the existing population in terms of availability of lung spaces. 39. The contentious issue with regard to the permissibility of compounding of the construction raised in deviation of the sanctioned plan or building byelaws, has also been dealt with by the Division Bench in detail while passing the order dated 12.1.17. Precisely, the contention of learned ASG regarding permissibility of the compounding of unauthorised construction is that it must be permitted to the extent permissible under the Rules of 1966. That apart, it is contended that it would be practically impossible for the Local Authorities to demolish large number of unauthorised constructions already raised and therefore, the directions issued by this court vide direction nos. (xx) and (xxi) deserve to be appropriately modified. 40. The planned development of the urban area presupposes the regulation of constructions by the Local Authority and thus, the authority administering the municipal laws in this regard cannot encourage any construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan and the norms regulating the construction of the buildings within the municipal area laid down under the Regulations/Building Byelaws. As per the mandate of provisions of Section 194 of the Act of 2009, the erection, re-erection of the building, material addition therein or erection, re-erection of any projecting building etc. is not permitted unless the plan thereof is sanctioned by the Municipality concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down. As per the mandate of provisions of Section 194 of the Act of 2009, the erection, re-erection of the building, material addition therein or erection, re-erection of any projecting building etc. is not permitted unless the plan thereof is sanctioned by the Municipality concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down. No Municipality is empowered to sanction any plan in deviation of the Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan or the Building Byelaws. As already noticed by the Division Bench in order dated 12.1.17, 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 part 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 set back, in violation of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 194, are offences punishable under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (10) of Section 194. It is true that Section 299 of the Act empowers the Municipality to compromise with any person who in the opinion of the Municipality has committed an offence punishable under the Act of 2009 or any byelaws made there under and by virtue of clause (c), it may compound any offence against the Act or the byelaws made there under, which by rules made by the State Government be declared compoundable and further that on the Municipality entering into compromise or compounding, no proceedings shall be taken against such person in respect of the offence. But then, the said provision, in no manner, empowers the Municipality to enter into compromise so as to regularize the unauthorized construction raised. The power of the State Government to make rules for compounding of the illegal construction raised has been dealt with by the Division Bench in the said order as under:— “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. 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 by-laws framed there under, are the offences punishable under the provisions of subsection (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 Bylaw there under, 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 hereinabove and the Building By-laws framed in this regard, cannot be permitted to be compounded.” (Emphasis added) It goes without saying that if the constructions are permitted by the Local Authorities in violation of the Building Byelaws, the very object of planned development contemplated under the Master Development Plan shall stand frustrated. Thus, it needs to be reiterated and emphasized that the discretion vested in the Municipality under the Rules of 1966 to compound unauthorized construction is not absolute, it 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 Scheme framed there under and the Building Byelaws of the Municipality concerned regulating construction within the local area. 41. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation”, 2013 (5) SCC 336 , relied upon by the Division Bench while passing the order dated 12.1.17, illegal and unauthorised construction of buildings and other structure not only violate the Municipal laws and concept of planned development of 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 of Master Plans/Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan. 42. 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 of Master Plans/Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan. 42. Obviously, if unauthorised construction raised violating the norms laid down regarding permissible specifications of the buildings within the local area, such as, projection of the building, set backs, height of the building, covered area etc. are permitted to be compounded, it is bound to affect the rights of other inhabitants of the area, who have raised the constructions of their buildings strictly adhering to the norms laid down under the Building Byelaws and thus, compounding of such deviations adversely affecting individual rights, apart from the planned development of the city, cannot be permitted to be regularised by this court exercising its judicial discretion, which would encourage and perpetuate an illegality. In our considered opinion, only the deviations from the sanctioned plan, which in no manner otherwise violate the norms laid down under the Building Byelaws regulating the construction in the local area could be permitted to be compounded and not the deviation which affects the rights of other inhabitants settled in the local area, such as, height of the building, projections, set backs, absence of parking area etc. Suffice it to say that the provisions regarding compounding of the deviations incorporated in the Rules, which as per the provisions of Act of 2009, the Municipality concerned is under an obligation to remove, cannot be given effect to and must be treated redundant. 43. The Supreme Court in “Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa” (2004) 8 SCC 733 , while dealing with the importance of planned development and the municipal laws regulating the building constructions observed:— “22. In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalization of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed there under. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners are to some extent prevented from making the most profitable use of their property. But for this reason alone the controlling regulations cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good. It can be stated in a way that power to plan development of city and to regulate the building activity therein flows from the police power of the State. The exercise of such governmental power is justified on account of it being reasonably necessary for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and ecological considerations; though an unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private ownership of the property may not be justified.” “23. The municipal laws regulating the building construction activity may provide for regulations as the floor area, the number of floors, the extent of height rise and the nature of use to which a built-up property may be subjected in any particular area. The individuals as property owners have to pay some price for securing peace, good order, dignity, protection and comfort and safety of the community. Not only filth, stench and unhealthy places have to be eliminated, but the layout helps in achieving family values, youth values, seclusion and clean air to make the locality a better place to live. Building regulations also help in reduction or elimination of fire hazards, the avoidance of traffic dangers and the lessening of prevention of traffic congestion in the streets and roads. Zoning and building regulations are also legitimised from the point of view of the control of community development, the prevention of overcrowding of land, the furnishing of recreational facilities like parts and playgrounds and the availability of adequate water, sewerage and other governmental or utility services.” 44. The Supreme Court while emphasizing the stern action against the persons indulged in unauthorised constructions in the matter of “Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India”, 2009 (15) SCC 705 (already referred to by the Division Bench in order dated 12.1.17), observed: 75. The Supreme Court while emphasizing the stern action against the persons indulged in unauthorised constructions in the matter of “Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India”, 2009 (15) SCC 705 (already referred to by the Division Bench in order dated 12.1.17), observed: 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.” 45. It is unfortunate that the State and its authorities instead of enforcing the provisions incorporated in the Municipal laws for regulating the constructions within the municipal areas as also the directions issued by this court vide order dated 12.1.17, have come before this court pleading their helplessness in dealing with the unauthorised constructions raised by unscrupulous persons. Needless to say that the power of compounding of unauthorised construction cannot be permitted to be liberally exercised and the authorities are under an obligation to take into consideration the public safety, health and environment, which includes in it hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance, the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 46. Needless to say that the power of compounding of unauthorised construction cannot be permitted to be liberally exercised and the authorities are under an obligation to take into consideration the public safety, health and environment, which includes in it hygienic atmosphere and ecological balance, the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 46. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to modify the directions issued by the Division Bench vide directions no.(xx) and (xxi), as suggested by the learned ASG and it needs to be emphasized that no unauthorised constructions raised except to the extent indicated above, should be permitted to be compounded by the Local Authorities. 47. Now, this brings us to consider the submissions of the learned counsel Mr. Bharat Vyas regarding the grant of permission to use agriculture land situated in urban area for the purpose other than that of agriculture in accordance with the provisions of Section 90A of the Act of 1956 and the provisions incorporated in other statutes referred to hereinabove for regularisation of unauthorised developments. 48. Sub-section (1) of Section 90A of the Act of 1956 mandates that no person holding any land for the purposes of agriculture, and no transferee of such land or any part thereof shall use the same or any part thereof by construction of buildings thereon or otherwise, for any other purpose except with the written permission of State Government obtained in the manner laid down and otherwise than in accordance with terms and conditions of such permission. Sub-sec. (2) to sub-sec. (5) of Section 90A prescribes the procedure for grant of permission for use of agriculture land for non- agricultural purposes. However, sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 90A specifically provides that when the permission is sought with respect to the land situated in an urban area, the permission shall be granted only if the desired nonagricultural purpose is permissible in accordance with the law applicable in that area and is in consonance with the Master Plan or any other Development Plan or Scheme by whatever name called, in force, if any, in that area. 49. 49. Further, as per sub-section (8) of Section 90A, if any person holding any land for agriculture purposes in urban area or within the urbanisable limits or peripheral belt of an urban area has used or has allowed to be used such land or any part thereof for consideration by way of various instruments specified or in any other manner for purported non-agriculture use, the rights and interest of such person in the said land or holding or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be liable to be terminated and on termination of the rights after giving him an opportunity of hearing, such land shall Vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and be deemed to have been placed at the disposal of the local authority and shall be available for allotment/regularization by the local authority for any permissible purposes in accordance with the rules, regulations and byelaws made under the law applicable to the local authority to the persons having possession over such land or part thereof as the case may be, on the basis of allotment made, or Patta given, by a Housing Cooperative Society or on the basis of any document of sale or agreement to sell or power of attorney or a Will or any other document purporting transfer of land to them either by the person whose rights and interests have been ordered to be terminated under the said subsection or by any other person claiming through such person, subject to the payment to the local authority of urban assessment or premium or both leviable and recoverable under sub-section (4). 50. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 90A referred supra, makes it abundantly clear that the power conferred upon State Government, prescribed officer or authority permitting conversion of agriculture land for non-agriculture purpose or regularization of unauthorized use of agriculture land for non-agriculture purpose to be permitted in terms of the provisions of Section 90A of the Act of 1956 is not unbridled rather, it is circumscribed with the condition that the regularisation/conversion of unauthorised use shall be permissible only when it is in consonance with Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plan or any other Development Plan or Scheme for time being in force in the concerned local area as also the rules, regulations or byelaws made under the law applicable to the local authority. 51. 51. As observed by the Division Bench in order dated 12.1.17, the object underlying the relevant statutes in setting up Development Authorities and Improvement Trust 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 or things which are necessary to achieve the object of planned development. The planned development pre-supposes that whenever any residential or commercial scheme is approved, the authority concerned shall ensure that adequate provision is made therein for open spaces, parks, playgrounds, civil amenities, roads, sewage, adequate water and electric supply and the colony developed is properly connected with the main roads of surrounding areas. In this view of the matter, the State Government and the Local Authorities cannot be permitted to proceed with the regularization of unauthorised colonies developed/constructions raised without there being the adequate provisions for required infrastructure facilities and amenities contemplated under Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plan or any other Plan as also the Development Rules, Building Regulations and the Byelaws applicable to the local area concerned. 52. Obviously, no unauthorised change of land use/constructions could be permitted to be regularised on ‘as it is where it is’ basis frustrating the very object of planned development of the town/cities contemplated under the various statutes and reflected in the Master Development Plan and Zonal Development Plan. In this view of the matter, unless the Zonal Development Plans and Sector Plans are prepared and notified, the question of the prescribed authorities proceeding with the consideration of the applications for regularisation of unauthorised use or constructions in the areas governed by Master Development Plan notified in accordance with the procedure laid down under the relevant statute, does not arise. It is high time that the State; Government and its authorities instead of showing its concern for regularisation of unauthorised development/constructions raised by the unscrupulous persons taking law in their hands, must first ensure that the Zonal Development Plans/Sector Plans for the entire local area regulated by Master Development Plan are finalised and notified in accordance with law and thereafter, the matter with regard to regularisation of unauthorised development/constructions which fulfills the requirement of the infrastructure facilities and amenities and are found to be strictly in consonance with the Master Development Plan, Zonal Development Plan and Sector Plans or any other Plans in force may be appropriately dealt with by the prescribed authorities in accordance with the procedure laid down under the relevant statutes, regulations and byelaws. 53. Lastly, coming to the contention raised on behalf of Mr. Rajesh Joshi regarding the modifications of the directions issued by the Division Bench restraining the respondents from permitting construction of multi-storey buildings in the existing residential colonies, suffice it to say that the multistorey buildings cannot be permitted to come up anywhere and everywhere so as to adversely affect the rights of the citizens who after spending their hard earned money constructed the houses and settled in a residential colony with projected infrastructure facility as per the layout plan duly approved. We are firmly of the opinion that while putting the interest of the residents of any residential colony or scheme already developed and implemented at stake, the Development Authorities/Local Authorities cannot be permitted to permit erection/re-erections of the buildings in such residential colonies just to further the interest and cause of developers and therefore, the prayer made for modification of the direction no. (xvi) issued by this court vide order dated 12.1.17 deserves to be declined. 54. In view of the discussion above, we modify/clarify the directions issued by Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.1.17 to the extent indicated below and issue further directions: (a) The directions issued by this court vide directions No. (ii) & (iii) directing preparation of Zonal Development Plan for each zone simultaneously with the preparation of Master Development Plan or immediately thereafter, are reiterated and the modification of the said directions as prayed for, is declined. (b) The prayer for modification of directions Nos. (b) The prayer for modification of directions Nos. (v), (vi) & (vii) is declined, however, it is clarified that the Green Zone delineated in the Master Development Plan-2011 of Jaipur Region has to be protected and the diversion of the area earmarked as Ecological Zone/Green Zone to other use as contained in Jaipur Master Development Plan-2025, which runs contrary to the directions issued by this court, shall not be made operative. Further, the diversion of the land use delineated in the Master Development Plan-2011 for Ecological Zone/Green Area proposed to be diverted for other use under Master Development Plan-2025 is directed to be restored as Ecological Zone/Green Area and no activities other than those which are permitted in the Ecological Zone/Green Area shall be open to be permitted therein by the State Authorities/Development Authorities. (c) The prayer for permitting the construction of multi-storey buildings in existing residential colonies, which are developed with infrastructure facilities keeping in view the number of family units to be settled in the houses to be constructed in such colonies is declined and the directions as contained in direction no.(xvi) of order dated 12.1.17, are reiterated. (d) The prayer for modification of directions no. (xx) & (xxi) so as to permit compounding of unauthorised constructions violating the building line and the set back norms laid down under the Building Byelaws or otherwise by the concerned local authority, in terms of Rules of 1966, is declined. It is clarified that only the deviations from the building plan duly sanctioned, which in no manner otherwise violate the norms laid down under the Building Byelaws regulating the constructions in the local area could be permitted to be compounded and not the deviations which affect the rights of other inhabitants settled in the local area, such as, height of the building, projections, set backs, absence of parking area etc. (e) The respondents are further directed not to permit conversion of land use/regularisation of unauthorised colony or individual unauthorised constructions until and unless the Zonal Development Plan and Sector Plans for the local area concerned governed by Master Development Plan are prepared, finalized and notified in accordance with law. (e) The respondents are further directed not to permit conversion of land use/regularisation of unauthorised colony or individual unauthorised constructions until and unless the Zonal Development Plan and Sector Plans for the local area concerned governed by Master Development Plan are prepared, finalized and notified in accordance with law. Further, the conversion of the land use or regularisation of unauthorised development shall not be permitted unless the unauthorised development undertaken fulfills the norms laid down for requisite infrastructure facilities and amenities and conforms to the Master Development Plan/Zonal Development Plan/Sector Plans/Schemes duly notified. Let, the matters be listed on 4.2.19 for arguments on the issues which remained pending consideration in terms of order dated 12.1.17 passed by the Division Bench as also on the issues raised in the petitions transferred from Jaipur Bench to the Principal seat subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order.